Howard v. Circadian Funding, LLC
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-08692
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Howard v. Circadian Funding, Judge Clarke dismissed the action without prejudice because Howard failed to prosecute and obey court orders.
Anthony Howard’s action was dismissed without prejudice. Circadian Funding, LLC was affected by the termination of the case, and all pending motions were terminated.
What happened
In Howard v. Circadian Funding, LLC, Anthony Howard’s lawyers asked to withdraw after repeated unsuccessful attempts to reach him. The court allowed them to withdraw and paused the case so Howard could find new counsel, but he did not do so or communicate with the court.
After the pause ended, Howard missed a deadline to provide a case update. The court warned him twice that the case could be dismissed if he did not participate, but he did not respond or take steps to continue the case.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Howard failed to follow court orders and failed to prosecute the case. The court also terminated all pending motions and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Howard v. Circadian Funding, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08692
- Clarke
- Oct. 27, 2023
Background
Anthony Howard’s counsel of record moved to withdraw on May 15, 2023, stating that counsel had repeatedly tried to reach Howard since early April but received no response. On May 22, 2023, the court granted the motion and stayed the case until July 24, 2023, to give Howard time to retain new counsel.
Howard did not retain new counsel or communicate with the court during the stay. After lifting the stay, the court ordered the parties to file a status update by August 17, 2023. Howard did not meet that deadline.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or fails to comply with the rules or a court order. The court explained that dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to follow a court order is within the district court’s discretion.
The court found that Howard had not complied with its orders and had made no effort to prosecute the litigation since his counsel withdrew in May 2023. The court had warned Howard on August 21 and September 27, 2023, that the action could be dismissed if he did not update the court. Howard did not respond to either warning. On September 27, the court also ordered Howard to explain by October 12 why he had failed to appear and prosecute the case; he did not comply.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) because Howard failed to comply with the court’s orders and did not indicate that he intended to prosecute the case. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case. The opinion did not decide the underlying merits of the dispute between Howard and Circadian Funding, LLC.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.