Rosario v. Santander Consumer USA
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-10565
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Rosario v. Santander Consumer USA: Judge Subramanian dismissed the case without prejudice after Rosario failed to serve Santander or respond to court orders.
Carlos Rosario, Jr.’s case against Santander Consumer USA was closed. The dismissal was without prejudice, and Santander had not been served according to the opinion.
What happened
In Carlos Rosario, Jr. v. Santander Consumer USA, the court said Rosario did not provide a new address for serving Santander after the first address failed. He also did not respond to an order asking why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
No one objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the case be dismissed. The district court reviewed the recommendation and agreed that Rosario’s continued failure to communicate justified dismissal, but made the dismissal without prejudice because Rosario was representing himself and pandemic-related office closures may have affected service.
Judge Arun Subramanian adopted the recommendation except for that change, dismissed the case without prejudice, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Rosario v. Santander Consumer USA · No. 1:22-cv-10565
- Subramanian
- May 16, 2024
Background
Carlos Rosario, Jr. filed the case on December 12, 2022. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for general pretrial matters. On June 9, 2023, the U.S. Marshals Service reported that it could not serve Santander Consumer USA at the address Rosario provided because the office was not occupied.
Judge Wang later extended the service deadline and directed Rosario to file another address for Santander. Rosario did not do so. Judge Wang then ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. Rosario did not respond to that order or otherwise communicate with the court.
Report and recommendation
Judge Wang recommended that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The recommendation warned that the parties had fourteen days to object and that failing to object would waive the right to object. No objections or requests for more time were filed.
Because there were no timely objections, Judge Subramanian reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a full new review. The court nevertheless reviewed the petition and recommendation and found the recommendation well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Reason for dismissal
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits involuntary dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court rules or orders. The court found that the relevant factors favored dismissal: Rosario had not supplied a service address or communicated with the court for months; he had been warned that continued inaction could lead to dismissal; the lack of service could prejudice Santander’s ability to litigate; continued efforts would consume court resources; and the court found that a lesser sanction would not be effective.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation except that it changed the dismissal to one without prejudice. The court relied on Rosario’s status as a self-represented litigant and the possibility that pandemic-related office closures contributed to the service problem. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not decide the underlying merits of Rosario’s claims against Santander.
Classification basis
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute without deciding the underlying legal claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.