Rangel v. 38 MacDougal LLC d/b/a Shuka
- Clarke
- 1:24-cv-00434
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Judge Clarke dismissed Rangel v. 38 MacDougal without prejudice after Rangel failed to pursue the case or follow court orders.
Maria Rangel’s action against 38 MacDougal LLC d/b/a Shuka, Anna-Marie McCullagh, and Chris Paraskevaides was dismissed without prejudice; the Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.
What happened
In Rangel v. 38 MacDougal LLC d/b/a Shuka, the court had ordered pro se Plaintiff Maria Rangel to say by April 12, 2024, whether she intended to continue the case. The court warned that it could dismiss the case if she did not respond.
Rangel did not respond by the deadline, did not attend two scheduled telephone conferences, and did not respond to the magistrate judge’s attempts to contact her. The court therefore treated her failure as a failure to prosecute, meaning she did not actively pursue the case.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.
The detailed version
- Rangel v. 38 MacDougal LLC d/b/a Shuka · No. 1:24-cv-00434
- Clarke
- Apr. 30, 2024
Background
Maria Rangel was proceeding without a lawyer. On March 25, 2024, the Court directed Rangel to state by April 12 whether she intended to continue prosecuting the case. The Court warned that it could dismiss the action if she did not file anything by that deadline.
Rangel did not respond to the March 25 order. She also did not appear for telephone conferences scheduled with Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky on April 15 and April 29, 2024. The opinion states that she did not respond to Judge Tarnofsky’s attempts to contact her by email or telephone and did not otherwise indicate that she intended to pursue the action.
Rule and 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 comply with the rules or a court order. The opinion explains that a court may take this action on its own after notifying the plaintiff. Because the Court received no response from Rangel, including no indication that she intended to continue the case, it applied Rule 41(b).
Ruling
The action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.