Maddy v. Ash & Erie, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-03936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Maddy v. Ash & Erie, Inc.: Judge Woods dismissed the website-accessibility action without prejudice because Maddy failed to prosecute and follow court orders.
Veronica Maddy’s case, which she brought for herself and others similarly situated; the court dismissed the action without prejudice and closed the case.
What happened
In Maddy v. Ash & Erie, Inc., Veronica Maddy alleged that Ash & Erie failed to make its website accessible to blind and visually impaired people. She brought the action for herself and others similarly situated.
The court had ordered the parties to submit case-management materials and directed Maddy to provide proof that Ash & Erie had been served or explain why the claims should not be dismissed. Maddy did not comply with those orders.
Judge Gregory H. Woods dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Maddy v. Ash & Erie, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03936
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 30, 2022
Background
Veronica Maddy filed a civil-rights action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. She alleged that Ash & Erie, Inc. failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website so that blind and visually impaired people could access and use it independently.
The court scheduled an initial pretrial conference and ordered the parties to submit a joint letter and proposed case-management plan by August 19, 2022. The parties did not meet that deadline. After the court ordered them to submit the materials, Maddy moved to adjourn the conference, stating that service on Ash & Erie had not been completed.
The court then ordered Maddy either to file proof of service or to show cause—explain why—the claims should not be dismissed for failure to serve process within the time allowed by Rule 4(m). The opinion states that Maddy did neither and also did not request an extension of the August 12, 2022 service deadline.
Court’s analysis
The court relied on Rule 41(b), which allows dismissal of a complaint when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order, treating the failure as a failure to prosecute. The court considered the duration of Maddy’s failures, the notice that continued delay could result in dismissal, possible prejudice from further delay, the need to manage the court’s docket while protecting due-process rights, and whether a lesser sanction would work.
The court found that more than three months had passed since the case was filed and that Maddy had failed to comply with the court’s orders. It concluded that no sanction short of dismissal would be effective. The court determined that dismissal without prejudice appropriately balanced the right to due process, the need to manage the docket, and the concern about leaving an inactive case pending.
Disposition
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The clerk was directed to close the case. The order did not decide the merits of Maddy’s website-accessibility allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.