Ace American Insurance Company v. Endurance American Insurance Company
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-00203
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ace American Insurance v. Endurance American Insurance, Judge Roman ordered Ace to explain its delay or face dismissal without prejudice.
Ace American Insurance Company, Endurance American Insurance Company, and Great Divide Insurance Company.
What happened
In Ace American Insurance Company v. Endurance American Insurance Company, Ace had not filed proof that it served Endurance American Insurance Company and Great Divide Insurance Company. Nearly nine months had passed since Ace communicated with the court or otherwise pursued the case, and the defendants had filed no answer.
The court ordered Ace to show in writing by December 27, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failing to prosecute it. The court warned that failing to comply with the order would result in dismissal. The order did not decide the underlying insurance dispute.
Judge Nelson S. Roman issued the order on December 12, 2022. He did not dismiss the case in this order; instead, he required Ace to explain its lack of action.
The detailed version
- Ace American Insurance Company v. Endurance American Insurance Company · No. 7:22-cv-00203
- Nelson Roman
- Dec. 12, 2022
Background
Ace American Insurance Company brought this action against Endurance American Insurance Company and Great Divide Insurance Company on January 10, 2022. Ace had not filed proof of service on either defendant. No defendant had filed an answer, and Ace had not requested a default judgment. The court stated that Ace had not communicated with the court or otherwise prosecuted the case for nearly nine months.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district judge to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute it. The court explained that, in deciding whether dismissal may be appropriate, it considers the length of the plaintiff’s failure, notice of the risk of dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendant, the court’s need to manage its calendar while protecting due process, and whether lesser sanctions would work.
The court stated that Ace’s failure to pursue the action had interfered with the court’s efforts to avoid calendar congestion and resolve cases efficiently.
Order
The court ordered Ace to show cause—that is, to explain in writing—by December 27, 2022, why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The court warned that failing to comply with this order would result in dismissal of the case. This order did not itself dismiss the action and did not reach the merits of the insurance dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.