Epps v. Pepsico Inc.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-01389
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Epps v. Pepsico Inc., Judge Roman dismissed the action for failure to prosecute after Joshua Epps failed to respond to a court order.
Joshua Epps’s action against PepsiCo, Inc. and Quail Mountain Coffee & Vending was dismissed because he did not prosecute the case or respond to the court’s order.
What happened
In Epps v. Pepsico Inc., Joshua Epps brought claims against PepsiCo, Inc. and Quail Mountain Coffee & Vending, doing business as Pepsi-Cola Bottling. He represented himself.
The court had ordered Epps to explain in writing why the case should not be dismissed because he had not pursued it. The order was mailed to him, but he did not respond. The court also noted that Epps appeared unreachable, had expressed a desire to end the case, and had not filed required opposition papers.
Judge Nelson S. Roman dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. He directed the clerk to close the case and mail Epps a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Epps v. Pepsico Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-01389
- Nelson Roman
- Feb. 21, 2023
Background
Joshua Epps, representing himself, sued PepsiCo, Inc. and Quail Mountain Coffee & Vending, doing business as Pepsi-Cola Bottling. On January 12, 2023, the court issued an order requiring Epps to explain in writing by February 13 why his claims should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal. The order was mailed to Epps at the address identified in the opinion.
Court’s reasoning
Rule 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to pursue a case or comply with court rules or a court order. The court stated that Epps appeared to be unreachable, had expressed a desire to discontinue the case, and had failed to file opposition papers under the court’s briefing schedule. Epps also did not respond to the order warning him that the action could be dismissed. The court concluded that Epps appeared to have abandoned the case.
Ruling
The court DISMISSES the action for want of prosecution. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the action, mail Epps a copy of the order, and record service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.