Hernandez v. Junkfood Clothing, LLC
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-06323
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hernandez v. Junkfood Clothing, Judge Torres dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Hernandez failed to prosecute the case.
Janelys Hernandez’s proposed class action against Junkfood Clothing, LLC was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court did not decide whether the website violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
What happened
In Hernandez v. Junkfood Clothing, LLC, Janelys Hernandez alleged that Junkfood Clothing’s website was not fully accessible to blind and visually impaired people, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The court ordered the parties several times to file case-management materials. None were filed, and Hernandez did not respond even after the court warned that continued noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
Judge Analisa Torres dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute, terminated pending motions, canceled conferences, and closed the case. The court did not decide whether the website violated the disability-access law.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Junkfood Clothing, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-06323
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 20, 2023
Background
Janelys Hernandez brought this proposed class action against Junkfood Clothing, LLC. She alleged that the defendant’s website, junkfoodclothing.com, was not fully accessible to blind and visually impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Failure to Prosecute
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter and proposed case-management plan by September 19, 2023. After the parties missed that deadline, the court issued additional orders setting deadlines in October and November. The parties did not file the required materials. The court then ordered Hernandez to show cause—meaning explain why the case should not be dismissed—by December 19, 2023, and warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal. Hernandez did not respond.
Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules or orders. The court evaluated five factors: the length of the plaintiff’s noncompliance, whether the plaintiff was warned about dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendant from further delay, the court’s need to manage its docket while allowing a fair opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction might work.
Ruling
The court concluded that all five factors favored dismissal. It found that Hernandez repeatedly failed to comply with court orders and had not communicated with the court since filing the case. The court had warned her that noncompliance could result in dismissal, and it found that the delay could prejudice the defendant. The court also determined that keeping the case open would waste court resources and that lesser sanctions were unlikely to make Hernandez resume prosecuting the case.
The complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions, vacate all conferences, and close the case. The court did not reach the merits of Hernandez’s disability-accessibility allegations.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.