Dashnau v. Unilever Manufacturing, Inc.

Background

On March 26, 2021, the court dismissed Plaintiffs’ amended complaint without prejudice. The court allowed Plaintiffs 30 days to file a second amended complaint and warned that failing to amend properly and on time would likely lead to dismissal of their claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint. The court stated that Plaintiffs and their counsel had taken no action to amend the complaint during the 18 months after the court’s deadline.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules or a court order. The court also explained that a district court has authority to order this dismissal on its own, without a defendant’s motion. Because dismissal for failure to prosecute is a severe remedy, the court considered five factors: the length of the plaintiff’s delay; whether the plaintiff was warned that further delay could lead to dismissal; likely prejudice to the defendant; the balance between court congestion and the plaintiff’s right to a fair chance to be heard; and whether lesser penalties would be effective.

Ruling

The court concluded that these factors favored dismissal. It dismissed Plaintiffs’ case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Judge Kenneth M. Karas did not issue a ruling on the underlying claims in the amended complaint.