Givens-Keefer v. American Express Company
- James Oetken
- 1:18-cv-04164
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Givens-Keefer v. American Express, Judge Oetken dismissed the action with prejudice because Plaintiff did not challenge an arbitration award or continue prosecuting.
Charles Givens-Keefer and the defendants—American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., Susan A. Zhang, and Danielle Wallace—were affected; the action was dismissed with prejudice and closed.
What happened
Charles Givens-Keefer sued American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., Susan A. Zhang, and Danielle Wallace over federal and state employment discrimination claims. The court later ordered the parties to arbitrate.
The arbitrator dismissed Givens-Keefer’s claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court notified him that any request concerning the arbitration award had to be filed within 21 days, but he did not ask the court to cancel the award or submit another filing.
Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed this action with prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order also directed the Clerk to mail a copy to Givens-Keefer, whom the order identified as proceeding without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Givens-Keefer v. American Express Company · No. 1:18-cv-04164
- James Oetken
- Dec. 8, 2022
Background
Charles Givens-Keefer sued American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., Susan A. Zhang, and Danielle Wallace on federal and state employment discrimination claims. On November 16, 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
Arbitration and Subsequent Filings
The defendants informed the court that the arbitrator had dismissed Givens-Keefer’s claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court then stated that any motion concerning the arbitration award had to be filed within 21 days. Givens-Keefer did not move to cancel the arbitration award or submit any other filing. The court stated that the award appeared valid under applicable law.
Ruling
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with a court order. The court concluded that dismissal was appropriate because Givens-Keefer had been warned that further delay could result in dismissal and had caused unreasonable delay. Because the arbitration award had dismissed his claims with prejudice and he had not sought to cancel that award, the court dismissed this action with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case and mail the order to the pro se plaintiff.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.