Aguilar v. Kimo Management Group Corp.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-07537
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
Aguilar v. Kimo Management Group, Judge Gardephe adopted an order dismissing Lesly Sosa’s claims without prejudice after she stopped participating.
Lesly Sosa’s claims were dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not state that the claims of the other plaintiffs were dismissed.
What happened
In Aguilar v. Kimo Management Group Corp., restaurant employees brought a wage-and-retaliation lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law. Lesly Sosa joined the case as an opt-in plaintiff.
After Sosa stopped responding to her lawyers, the plaintiffs asked to remove her from the case. Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses ordered Sosa to explain why her claims should not be dismissed, but she did not respond.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe found no clear error in Judge Moses’s recommendation and adopted it in full. The court dismissed Sosa’s claims without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The detailed version
- Aguilar v. Kimo Management Group Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-07537
- Paul Gardephe
- Apr. 6, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs brought a class and collective action against defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. They alleged failures to pay overtime and minimum wages, provide required wage notices and accurate wage statements, pay for all hours worked, comply with spread-of-hours requirements, and refrain from retaliation. The court had conditionally certified a Fair Labor Standards Act collective and notice had been sent to potential members.
Lesly Sosa filed a consent form on May 17, 2022, agreeing to join the lawsuit and authorizing plaintiffs’ counsel to represent her. Plaintiffs’ counsel later reported that Sosa did not respond to repeated calls, emails, and text messages and that counsel had not spoken with her after she signed the consent form. Plaintiffs asked that Sosa’s consent form be removed from the docket and that she be withdrawn from the case. Defendants did not object.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
Judge Barbara C. Moses ordered Sosa to show cause in writing why her claims should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) or 41(b). The order warned that her claims could be dismissed if she did not respond. Plaintiffs filed proof that the order had been served at Sosa’s last-known physical and email addresses. Sosa did not respond.
Judge Moses recommended dismissing Sosa’s claims without prejudice under Rule 41(b). The recommendation relied on Sosa’s failure to participate, her failure to respond to counsel and the show-cause order, the resulting prejudice to the other plaintiffs and defendants from further delay, and the lack of reason to believe a lesser sanction would prompt her participation.
District Court’s Review and Ruling
No party objected to the recommendation. Judge Gardephe explained that the lack of objections generally waived further judicial review, but he independently reviewed the record for clear error. He found the recommendation thorough, well reasoned, and free of clear error.
Judge Gardephe adopted Judge Moses’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court dismissed Opt-In Plaintiff Lesly Sosa’s claims without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the plaintiffs’ motion to remove Sosa from the docket.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.