Diaz v. A & M Tasty Snacks, Inc.
- Garnett
- 1:22-cv-07361
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Diaz v. A&M Tasty Snacks, Judge Garnett dismissed the action without prejudice because Diaz failed to prosecute and did not comply with a court order.
Felix Diaz and the remaining defendants—A&M Tasty Snacks, Inc., Ahmed Mohamed, and Medhat Elsherbiny—were affected; the action was dismissed without prejudice and the case was closed.
What happened
In Diaz v. A&M Tasty Snacks, Inc., Felix Diaz sued A&M Tasty Snacks, Inc., Ahmed Mohamed, and Medhat Elsherbiny. The court had previously dismissed two other defendants without prejudice.
More than a year after summonses were issued for the remaining defendants, Diaz had not filed proof that they were served or taken apparent steps to move the case forward. He also did not respond to the court’s order requiring an update on the case and service.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or obey a court order. Judge Margaret M. Garnett directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Diaz v. A & M Tasty Snacks, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07361
- Garnett
- Mar. 11, 2024
Background
Felix Diaz initially filed this action against Utz Quality Foods, Inc. and Utz Quality Foods, LLC. He later filed an amended complaint naming A&M Tasty Snacks, Inc., Ahmed Mohamed, and Medhat Elsherbiny. On February 22, 2023, the court dismissed the Utz defendants without prejudice as to all causes of action.
On February 27, 2023, Diaz requested summonses for A&M Tasty Snacks, Mohamed, and Elsherbiny, and the summonses were issued the next day. The opinion states that, despite the passage of more than a year, Diaz did not file proof of service or take any apparent steps to advance the action.
Court Order
After the case was reassigned, the court ordered Diaz to file a letter by March 8, 2024, updating the court on the case’s status and addressing service on the remaining defendants. Diaz did not respond to that order and did not otherwise indicate that he intended to pursue the action.
Disposition
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with the rules or a court order. Because the court had received no response from Diaz indicating that he intended to pursue the case, Judge Margaret M. Garnett dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.