Hernandez v. Morning Lavender, LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-03527
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hernandez v. Morning Lavender, Judge Engelmayer declined to adopt a dismissal recommendation and ordered a 30-day period for completing settlement.
Janelys Hernandez’s ADA case against Morning Lavender, LLC was not dismissed at the time of this opinion under the recommended failure-to-prosecute ruling. The court stated that a separate 30-day order would dismiss and discontinue the case while preserving Hernandez’s right to reopen it within 30 days if the settlement was not completed.
What happened
In Hernandez v. Morning Lavender, LLC, Janelys Hernandez alleged that Morning Lavender’s website violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The defendant did not answer or appear, and Hernandez did not respond to several court orders or a direction to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissal because of Hernandez’s repeated failure to respond. Hernandez objected, stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle and that she had experienced pneumonia while her lawyer became the sole caregiver for an immediate family member in a health crisis. The defendant did not reply.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer found no clear error in the recommendation but declined to dismiss the case at that time. He stated that a separate 30-day order would dismiss and discontinue the case without costs, while allowing Hernandez to reopen it within 30 days if the settlement was not completed.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Morning Lavender, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-03527
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 7, 2023
Background
Janelys Hernandez filed a complaint alleging that Morning Lavender, LLC’s website did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The defendant was served and received an extension of time to answer, but it did not answer or appear. Hernandez also did not provide a requested update about settlement discussions or respond to an order directing her to show why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court orders. Hernandez timely objected. Her counsel represented that Hernandez and the defendant had reached a settlement in principle on July 18, 2023, but that the defendant later stopped responding. Counsel also reported Hernandez’s hospitalization with, or continuing effects from, pneumonia and counsel’s responsibility as the sole caregiver for an immediate family member in a health crisis.
Court’s analysis
The district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation. Because the court found that Hernandez’s objections did not establish clear error in the recommendation, it found no clear error in the Report. The court also stated that Rule 60(b), which provides relief from a final judgment or order, did not apply because a Report and Recommendation is not a final judgment or order.
Even so, the court declined to use its authority to dismiss the case at that time. It relied on the representation that the parties had reached a settlement in principle and stated that it would enter, by separate order, the type of 30-day order typically used when parties agree in principle to settle.
Disposition
The court declined to adopt Judge Parker’s August 21, 2023 Report and Recommendation at that time. It stated that the separate 30-day order would dismiss and discontinue the case without costs and without prejudice to Hernandez’s right to reopen the action within 30 days if the settlement was not completed. “Without prejudice” means the stated right to reopen was preserved during that period.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.