Solomon v. A + Valet Parking Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-07331
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Solomon v. A + Valet Parking: Judge Ramos dismissed the Fair Labor Standards Act case under Rule 41(b) after Solomon failed to serve Saravia and pursue default judgment.
The dismissal affected David Solomon’s action on behalf of himself and the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collective, including claims against A + Valet Parking Inc. and Carlos Saravia.
What happened
In Solomon v. A + Valet Parking Inc., David Solomon sued A + Valet Parking Inc. and Carlos Saravia under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of himself and others in a proposed collective action.
A + Valet Parking Inc. did not answer, and the Clerk entered a certificate of default. Solomon did not later move for default judgment, serve Saravia, or file the status report the Court ordered.
Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed the entire action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk to terminate the case.
The detailed version
- Solomon v. A + Valet Parking Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07331
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 27, 2023
Background
David Solomon brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case against A + Valet Parking Inc. and Carlos Saravia on behalf of himself and others in a proposed collective action. The opinion states that the action was brought on August 27, 2022.
A + Valet Parking Inc. was served on September 6, 2022, but did not answer by the September 27 deadline. Solomon then sought a certificate of default, and the Clerk entered one on October 13, 2022. The Court later directed Solomon to move for default judgment and serve Saravia, or provide another status report. The Court warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The opinion states that Solomon did not move for default judgment, serve Saravia, or file another status report.
Court’s ruling
The Court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a district court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it. The Court considered the length of Solomon’s delays, the warnings he received, presumed prejudice to the defendants, the protection of his opportunity to be heard, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.
The Court concluded that dismissal was appropriate because Solomon had failed to move the case forward for about five months despite clear warnings. Accordingly, Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed the action in its entirety under Rule 41(b) and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.