Bermejo Sanango v. Ruby Nails Tarrytown, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-08245
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Bermejo Sanango v. Ruby Nails Tarrytown, Judge Halpern dismissed the action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to prosecute it.
The dismissal ended Maria Concepcion Bermejo Sanango’s action against Ruby Nails Tarrytown, Inc., Mi Young Kal, Edwin Keh, and the other defendants, without prejudice.
What happened
In Bermejo Sanango v. Ruby Nails Tarrytown, Inc., Maria Concepcion Bermejo Sanango sued Ruby Nails Tarrytown, Inc. and other defendants and later sought a judgment because the defendants had not responded.
The court previously denied her request for that judgment because it did not follow the court’s filing requirements. Afterward, she neither renewed the request nor responded to an order asking why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Judge Halpern ruled that the plaintiff’s failure to follow court orders for about 13 months justified dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court dismissed the action without prejudice and directed the clerk to close it.
The detailed version
- Bermejo Sanango v. Ruby Nails Tarrytown, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-08245
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 10, 2023
Background
Maria Concepcion Bermejo Sanango filed the action on October 4, 2020, against Ruby Nails Tarrytown, Inc., doing business as Ruby Nail, and other defendants. The clerk entered defaults against Ruby Nails Tarrytown, Inc., Mi Young Kal, and Edwin Keh. Bermejo Sanango then asked the court to enter a default judgment against all defendants.
On August 9, 2022, the court denied the default-judgment request because it did not comply with Rule 4(B) and Attachment A of the court’s individual practices. The court stated that the request could be renewed, but Bermejo Sanango did not renew it or make further filings.
On December 2, 2022, the court issued an order requiring Bermejo Sanango to explain in writing why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal without prejudice. She did not respond or otherwise communicate with the court.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action when the plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court orders. The court applied the Second Circuit’s five-factor test: the length of the failure, whether the plaintiff had notice that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to defendants, the balance between docket management and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction had been considered.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Bermejo Sanango had failed to comply with court orders over approximately 13 months. It also found that she had been warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal. The court stated that prejudice to defendants could be presumed because the delay was lengthy and inexcusable.
The court balanced the need to manage its docket against the plaintiff’s right to have the case heard and concluded that dismissal was appropriate. It also considered whether a less severe sanction would suffice and determined that dismissal was proper because the plaintiff appeared to have abandoned the litigation.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) and directed the clerk to terminate the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.