Adams v. Deva Concepts, LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-09717
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Adams v. Deva Concepts, Judge Woods dismissed three plaintiffs’ and five plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denied pending dismissal motions as moot.
Marium Hussain, Allyson Rainey, Tara Sparks, Yazmin Ali, Kimberly Couture, Mariana Goes, Annyoceli Santiago, and Shirley Weiss had their claims against Deva Concepts, LLC dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The pending motions to dismiss were denied as moot, and the dismissed plaintiffs were removed from the case captions.
What happened
In Adams v. Deva Concepts, LLC, the court addressed claims by three Adams Plaintiffs—Marium Hussain, Allyson Rainey, and Tara Sparks—and five Bates Plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not provide outstanding discovery, stopped communicating with their former lawyers, and failed to attend three court conferences despite being personally ordered to appear.
The court had warned that failing to attend could, and later would, lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The plaintiffs did not file appearances through new lawyers or otherwise show that they intended to continue their cases. The court concluded that dismissal was necessary and that a lesser penalty would not work.
Judge Gregory H. Woods dismissed the Adams Plaintiffs’ and Bates Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court also denied the pending motions to dismiss as moot and directed the clerk to remove the dismissed plaintiffs from the case captions and terminate the listed motions.
The detailed version
- Adams v. Deva Concepts, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-09717
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 23, 2024
Background
This order concerns the Adams case and a related Bates case against Deva Concepts, LLC. The Adams Plaintiffs were Marium Hussain, Allyson Rainey, and Tara Sparks. The Bates Plaintiffs were Yazmin Ali, Kimberly Couture, Mariana Goes, Annyoceli Santiago, and Shirley Weiss.
The Adams Plaintiffs and Bates Plaintiffs failed to attend three court-scheduled conferences at which they had been specifically ordered to appear. The conferences concerned, among other things, their former attorneys’ withdrawals and whether they intended to continue prosecuting their cases. The plaintiffs also failed to provide outstanding discovery or communicate with their former attorneys about that discovery. The attorneys withdrew after ongoing noncommunication, which the court said had continued since at least June 2023. No new notice of appearance was filed on the plaintiffs’ behalf.
The court had warned the plaintiffs that failing to attend the conferences could, and later would, result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court also noted that it had been informed that the case had settled as to all other remaining plaintiffs’ claims, and that the remaining parties had reached a resolution in both cases.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order, treating that failure as a failure to prosecute. The court considered the duration of the plaintiffs’ failures, whether they had notice that further delay could result in dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendant, the need to manage the court’s docket while protecting due process, and whether a lesser sanction would be effective.
Ruling
The court found dismissal warranted because the plaintiffs had repeatedly violated court orders, failed to provide discovery, failed to communicate with their former attorneys and the court, and gave no indication that they intended to prosecute their cases. The court concluded that no lesser sanction would be effective. It dismissed the Adams Plaintiffs’ and Bates Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).
The court also denied the motions to dismiss as moot. It directed the clerk to terminate the dismissed plaintiffs from the case captions and to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. No. 96 in Adams and Dkt. No. 95 in Bates.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.