Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-03843
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Judge Engelmayer dismissed the action for failure to prosecute after Garnes repeatedly failed to initiate required arbitration.
Mark Garnes’s federal discrimination lawsuit against Pritchard Industries, Inc. was dismissed after he did not initiate the required arbitration or comply with related court orders.
What happened
In Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Mark Garnes, representing himself, brought discrimination claims against his former employer under federal employment laws. The court had required him to arbitrate those claims and paused the lawsuit while arbitration proceeded.
Garnes did not start arbitration despite several court orders and warnings. He objected that he could not afford arbitration and that he had tried to pursue it, but the court found he had been told that he would not have to pay the relevant costs and had repeatedly failed to follow the court’s orders.
Judge Engelmayer adopted the magistrate judge’s report and dismissed the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The report had recommended dismissal without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03843
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 2, 2024
Background
Mark Garnes, proceeding without a lawyer, sued his former employer, Pritchard Industries, Inc., asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In June 2023, the court, acting on a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave, ruled that Garnes had to arbitrate his discrimination claims and stayed the lawsuit while arbitration proceeded.
Between December 2023 and February 2024, Judge Cave issued several orders requiring Garnes to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to actively pursue the case. Garnes either did not respond or said he would start arbitration but did not do so. Judge Cave then recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Garnes’s Objections
Garnes objected that he believed he could not afford to begin arbitration and had not understood that Pritchard would cover the required costs. The court rejected that argument. The record showed that Pritchard had reported that mediation costs were covered by the union and a multiemployer association, while the employer alone covered the arbitrator’s fees. Judge Cave had also told Garnes that his financial status did not affect his obligation to arbitrate because the agreement required the employer to pay the arbitrator’s fees.
Garnes also argued that he had stayed in contact with Pritchard’s counsel, had acted diligently, and should receive more lenient treatment because he was representing himself. The court recognized that courts generally give special consideration to people without lawyers, but explained that all litigants must follow court orders. It found that Garnes had repeatedly failed to initiate arbitration despite having several months to do so and despite warnings that continued noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
Ruling
Judge Engelmayer agreed that Garnes’s persistent failure to comply with the court’s orders and pursue arbitration justified dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court adopted Judge Cave’s report in full and dismissed the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The opinion states that the report recommended dismissal without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.