Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 17, 2022

Jimenez v. Bosie, LLC

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:19-cv-11570-ER
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
EmploymentFlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jimenez v. Bosie, LLC, Judge Ramos dismissed the employment case with prejudice after Jimenez failed to prosecute it.

Who this affects

Leocadio Jimenez’s employment action against Bosie, LLC, Marie Arun Teas Inc., Nilesh Dawda, and Jessica Massias was dismissed with prejudice and the case was closed.

What happened

Jimenez v. Bosie, LLC involved Leocadio Jimenez’s employment claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law against Bosie, LLC, Marie Arun Teas Inc., Nilesh Dawda, and Jessica Massias.

Jimenez did not attend a scheduled mediation, stopped communicating with his lawyer and the court, and did not respond after the court allowed his lawyer to withdraw and ordered him to obtain new counsel or say he would proceed without a lawyer. The court warned that failing to respond could lead to dismissal.

Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), finding that all required factors supported dismissal. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Jimenez v. Bosie, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-11570-ER
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Oct. 17, 2022

Background

Leocadio Jimenez sued Bosie, LLC, doing business as BOSIE TEA PARLOR, Marie Arun Teas Inc., Nilesh Dawda, and Jessica Massias. He asserted employment claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. After the court denied Dawda’s motion to dismiss, it held an initial conference and referred the case to mediation.

The mediation did not resolve the claims. The parties then reported that Jimenez had failed to attend the scheduled mediation and that his lawyer could not reach or locate him. The court granted the lawyer’s request to withdraw and ordered Jimenez either to notify the court that he would proceed without a lawyer or to have new counsel enter an appearance by March 31, 2022. The court warned that failing to comply could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order was mailed to Jimenez at his last known address.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the five factors used to decide whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b): the length of the plaintiff’s failure, notice that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to defendants, the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.

The court found that Jimenez had not complied with the March 2022 order or communicated with the court for about seven months. Including his failure to attend the October 2021 mediation, he had taken no meaningful action to prosecute the case for approximately one year. The court found that he had received clear notice of the possible dismissal, that prejudice to the defendants could be presumed from the delay, and that Jimenez had not used his opportunity to be heard. It also found that lesser sanctions would not be effective because he had ignored the court’s order, failed to attend mediation, and appeared to have abandoned the litigation.

Ruling

Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The clerk was directed to close the case and mail a copy of the order to Jimenez.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.