Brown v. Weber
- Nelson Roman
- 7:18-cv-09618-NSR
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Brown v. Weber, Judge Roman dismissed the action without prejudice because the plaintiffs failed to prosecute it.
Rasha Brown and Lloyd Watson’s personal-injury action against Terence Weber and Stevens Transport, Inc. was dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request to make an application to withdraw was denied.
What happened
In Brown v. Weber, Rasha Brown and Lloyd Watson sued Terence Weber and Stevens Transport, Inc. over injuries they said they suffered in a 2015 motor-vehicle accident. The case had been inactive for more than a year.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed. Their lawyers responded that they had been unable to contact the plaintiffs despite trying by telephone, mail, and investigators, and asked for permission to withdraw.
Judge Nelson S. Roman dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denied the lawyers’ request to withdraw. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail the order to the plaintiffs.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Weber · No. 7:18-cv-09618-NSR
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 28, 2023
Background
Rasha Brown and Lloyd Watson brought a personal-injury lawsuit against Terence Weber and Stevens Transport, Inc. They alleged that the defendants were responsible for injuries suffered during a motor-vehicle accident on May 12, 2015, in Rockland County, New York. The case was filed on April 25, 2018, transferred to the Southern District of New York on October 30, 2018, and reassigned to Judge Nelson S. Roman on November 8, 2018.
The opinion states that Stevens Transport, Inc. sought a clerk’s certificate of default against Brown concerning its counterclaim against her. The clerk’s certificate was entered, and the case then remained inactive. The opinion also states that the plaintiffs had taken no steps to move the case forward for well over a year.
Failure to Prosecute
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district judge to dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff fails to prosecute, meaning fails to move the case forward. Before dismissing, the court considered the length of the delay, notice of the possible dismissal, potential prejudice to the defendants, the need to manage the court’s calendar while protecting due process, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.
On March 6, 2023, the court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause in writing by March 27, 2023, why their claims should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded that counsel had been unable to contact the plaintiffs since the COVID-19 pandemic despite attempts to reach them by telephone and mail and through hired investigators. Counsel also requested permission to apply to withdraw from the case.
Ruling
The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown an intention to prosecute the action or responded to the order to show cause. Judge Nelson S. Roman therefore ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The court also denied plaintiffs’ counsel’s request to make an application to withdraw as attorneys. The clerk was directed to terminate the action, mail copies of the order to the plaintiffs at the addresses listed in the electronic docket, and record proof of service.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.