Jones v. CRWW, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-06141
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Jones v. CRWW, Judge Engelmayer dismissed the action without prejudice after Jones failed to prosecute it.
Damon Jones’s action against CRWW, Inc., including the proposed claims brought on behalf of similarly situated people, was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
What happened
In Jones v. CRWW, Damon Jones claimed that CRWW’s website was not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired customers, violating disability-rights laws. CRWW did not respond or appear after being served.
Jones also did not request a default certificate, move for default judgment, or respond to the court’s order to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. He did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Judge Engelmayer adopted the recommendation after finding no clear error and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Jones v. CRWW, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06141
- Paul Engelmayer
- Oct. 2, 2023
Background
Damon Jones brought this proposed class action against CRWW, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that CRWW’s website was not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired customers.
Jones served CRWW, but CRWW did not respond to the complaint or otherwise appear. A magistrate judge directed Jones to request a certificate of default and file a motion for default judgment. Jones did neither. The magistrate judge then ordered Jones to explain, by affidavit or declaration, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Jones did not respond or otherwise contact the court.
Ruling
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Because no party objected, Judge Engelmayer reviewed the recommendation for clear error. He found no facial error, adopted the recommendation in its entirety, and dismissed the action, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived objections and precluded appellate review, as provided in the recommendation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.