Reynoso Santana v. Pupy Grocery Corp.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-08292
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Reynoso Santana v. Pupy Grocery, Judge Liman dismissed the case for failure to prosecute after plaintiff repeatedly missed deadlines to seek default judgment.
The dismissal ended Venecia Reynoso Santana’s case against Pupy Grocery Corp. and the other named defendants without a decision on the underlying claims. Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw was denied as moot.
What happened
Venecia Reynoso Santana sued Pupy Grocery Corp. and other defendants, but none of the defendants appeared. The court gave Reynoso Santana several extensions to file a request for default judgment, but she did not meet the final deadline.
The court had warned that missing the final deadline would lead to dismissal. It found that the case had not been pursued for more than four months and that the record supported dismissal under the factors governing failure to prosecute, including notice and the futility of lesser sanctions.
Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close it. The court denied as moot plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw.
The detailed version
- Reynoso Santana v. Pupy Grocery Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-08292
- Lewis Liman
- May 26, 2023
Background
Venecia Reynoso Santana filed the complaint on September 28, 2022, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. None of the defendants entered a notice of appearance or appeared at the initial pretrial conference. The court then directed plaintiff to request certificates of default and to file a motion for default judgment.
Plaintiff’s counsel requested multiple extensions because counsel could not reach Reynoso Santana to review her declaration and finalize the default-judgment motion. The court extended the deadline several times, ultimately requiring the motion by May 25, 2023, and expressly warning that no further extensions would be granted and that failure to file the motion would result in dismissal. Plaintiff did not file the motion. Instead, on May 24, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 permits a court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. The court applied five factors: the duration of the plaintiff’s delay, whether the plaintiff received notice that further delay could lead to dismissal, likely prejudice to the defendants, the balance between court efficiency and the plaintiff’s opportunity to have the case heard, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.
The court found dismissal appropriate. It concluded that plaintiff had not prosecuted the case for more than four months, had received clear notice that failure to file the default-judgment motion would result in dismissal, and had been given multiple opportunities to proceed. Although the record did not specifically show that delay had prejudiced defendants, the court stated that prejudice from unreasonable delay may be presumed. It also found that lesser sanctions would be futile.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court denied as moot plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. The opinion did not decide whether plaintiff was entitled to default judgment or reach the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.