Toro v. Crabtree & Evelyn, Ltd.
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-06088
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Toro v. Crabtree & Evelyn, Judge Oetken dismissed the action without prejudice because Toro failed to prosecute it.
Jasmine Toro's action against Crabtree & Evelyn, Ltd. was dismissed without prejudice and the case was closed; the opinion states that the action could be refiled.
What happened
In Toro v. Crabtree & Evelyn, Jasmine Toro brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York human-rights laws against Crabtree & Evelyn, Ltd. She later filed a proposed default judgment, but the docket did not show that she had served the motion on the defendant.
The court ordered Toro to report on service of the motion and later warned that failing to respond would lead to dismissal. Toro did not respond to either order.
Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The dismissal was without prejudice to refiling.
The detailed version
- Toro v. Crabtree & Evelyn, Ltd. · No. 1:22-cv-06088
- James Oetken
- Nov. 30, 2023
Background
Jasmine Toro sued Crabtree & Evelyn, Ltd., asserting claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Toro later filed a proposed default judgment against the defendant. The docket did not reflect service of that motion on Crabtree & Evelyn.
Failure to Respond
The court ordered Toro to file a letter addressing the status of service of her default-judgment motion. Toro did not file the required letter. The court later directed her to respond to the earlier order within seven days and warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Toro did not respond to either order.
Ruling
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with a court order. Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court stated that Toro had been warned about the consequence of further delay and that her unreasonable delay supported dismissal. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and stated that the action was dismissed without prejudice to refiling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.