Compere v. MTGLQ Investors LP
- Victor Marrero
- 1:23-cv-04669
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Judge Marrero dismissed Compere v. MTGLQ Investors LP after the plaintiff failed to prosecute the case and obey court orders.
Marie S. Compere’s action was dismissed, and the clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state the effect of the dismissal on the underlying claims beyond that disposition.
What happened
In Compere v. MTGLQ Investors LP, the plaintiff did not respond to the defendants’ planned dismissal motion or to two court orders about how the case would proceed. The defendants also reported that their attempts to contact the plaintiff received no response.
The court warned the plaintiff that failing to respond could lead to dismissal. The plaintiff still did not respond for more than four months. The court found that dismissal was appropriate because of the delay, the warnings, the presumed prejudice to the defendants, and the ineffectiveness of lesser penalties.
Judge Victor Marrero dismissed the action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. He directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Compere v. MTGLQ Investors LP · No. 1:23-cv-04669
- Victor Marrero
- Oct. 10, 2023
Background
Marie S. Compere’s action was removed from New York state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 7, 2023. The defendants had not filed notices of appearance, but they sent Compere a letter stating that they intended to move to dismiss the complaint. They also told the court that they had tried to contact Compere about her claims and her intentions, without receiving a response.
On September 14, 2023, the court directed the parties to submit a joint status letter within 10 days. The court warned that it could dismiss the action for failure to prosecute if no timely response was filed. The defendants submitted their response, but Compere did not. On September 29, 2023, the court ordered Compere to show cause within five days why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the September 14 order. The court again warned that it would dismiss the action if she did not respond. Compere did not respond to either order.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 allows a court to dismiss an action on its own for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. The court considered five factors used in the Second Circuit: the length of the plaintiff’s delay, whether the plaintiff received notice that delay could lead to dismissal, likely prejudice to the defendants, the balance between court congestion and the plaintiff’s opportunity to have the case heard, and whether lesser penalties would work.
The court found that Compere had not prosecuted the action for more than four months, a delay the court considered substantial. She had received two warnings that failing to respond could result in dismissal. Although the record did not contain specific evidence that the delay had prejudiced the defendants, the court stated that prejudice may be presumed from unreasonable delay. The court also found that it had already given Compere repeated opportunities to continue the case and that a lesser penalty would not be effective.
Disposition
The court ordered that the action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of the Court. The clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.