Johnston v. Electrum Partners, LLC
- Katherine Failla
- 1:17-cv-07823
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Johnston v. Electrum Partners, Judge Failla dismissed the action with prejudice after Johnston repeatedly missed court-ordered status-update deadlines.
Pamela Johnston’s action against Electrum Partners, LLC and Leslie Bocskor was dismissed with prejudice; the court also terminated pending motions and closed the case.
What happened
In Johnston v. Electrum Partners, LLC, the court had stayed Pamela Johnston’s case while a parallel proceeding in Nevada and any resulting arbitration proceeded. The court required regular updates, and after defense counsel withdrew, Johnston became solely responsible for filing them.
Johnston repeatedly missed deadlines, even after the court extended them and warned that another failure would lead to dismissal. She again failed to file the update due October 1, 2022, and had not filed it nearly a month later.
Judge Failla found that all five required factors supported dismissal, including Johnston’s repeated noncompliance, her notice of the consequences, and the court’s prior warnings and deadline extensions. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, terminated pending motions, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Johnston v. Electrum Partners, LLC · No. 1:17-cv-07823
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 1, 2022
Background
The court had stayed this action on June 21, 2018, pending a parallel proceeding in the District of Nevada and any resulting arbitration. It ordered the parties to provide joint status updates every 90 days. After the court allowed Defendants’ attorneys to withdraw in May 2020, Plaintiff became solely responsible for submitting the updates.
Plaintiff repeatedly failed to meet the court’s deadlines. She missed a May 2021 deadline and later failed to file an update due in November 2021. The court extended her deadlines, warned her that continued noncompliance would not be tolerated, and gave her a final opportunity while expressly stating that failure to comply would result in dismissal. The court accepted a later late submission and again warned that no further warnings would be issued.
On May 31, 2022, the court ordered Plaintiff to file another update by October 1, 2022, and again warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Nearly one month after that deadline, Plaintiff still had not filed the update.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to pursue a case or comply with court rules or orders. The court considered five factors: how long the plaintiff failed to comply, whether she knew dismissal was possible, likely prejudice to the defendants from further delay, the balance between court docket management and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether the court had considered a less severe penalty.
The court held that every factor supported dismissal. Plaintiff had consistently missed status-update deadlines since May 2021 despite repeated and explicit warnings. The court found that dismissal would neither prejudice Defendants nor deny Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard because the parties were already litigating the merits in the pending Nevada proceedings. The court also found that it had tried less severe measures, including warnings and deadline extensions, without success.
Disposition
Judge Failla ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn the remaining dates, and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.