Yoon v. Jamaica French Cleaners, Inc. et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. For the reasons stated in the attached order, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 3/24/2015.(Williams, Jennifer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------x
SUK HAN YOON,
Plaintiff,

-against-

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
12-CV-3845 (RLM)

JAMAICA FRENCH CLEANERS,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------x
ROANNE L. MANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
On August 22, 2014, this Court granted a motion by plaintiff Suk Han Yoon
(“plaintiff”) to strike the answer of the defendants and, accordingly, entered a notation of
default against each defendant.1 See Memorandum and Order (Aug. 22, 2014) at 6, DE #43.
In doing so, the Court directed plaintiff to file “a fully-supported motion for default judgment
by September 22, 2014 . . . .” Id. at 7. Although plaintiff timely filed a motion for default
judgment, see Motion for Judgment (Sept. 22, 2014), DE #44, the papers submitted by
plaintiff were deficient in several material respects, which the Court detailed in a
Memorandum and Order issued on October 1, 2014. See Memorandum and Order (Oct. 1,
2014) at 1-3, DE #45. For that reason, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion for default
judgment without prejudice and, “[w]ith great reluctance,” gave plaintiff “one final chance to
file and serve a motion for default judgment that is fully supported with legal citations and

1

In January 2013, with the parties’ consent, the case had been reassigned to this magistrate
judge for all purposes. See Consent (Jan. 10, 2013), Electronic Case Filing Docket Entry
(“DE”) #14.

relevant evidence.” Id. at 3 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff was directed to do so by October
15, 2014. Id.
Plaintiff did not comply with that order, nor has he taken any further action to pursue
his claims. Plaintiff was therefore directed to show cause, via ECF, by March 20, 2015, why
the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Order To Show Cause (Mar. 16,
2015), DE #46. Plaintiff was expressly warned that his failure to timely comply with the
Court’s Order to Show Cause would result in an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice
and closing the case. See id. Plaintiff nevertheless has persisted in flouting the Court’s orders
and has apparently abandoned the case.
DISCUSSION
Where, as here, a plaintiff fails to reasonably pursue his claims, and violates court
orders, the case may be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Courts in the Second Circuit consider five
factors in exercising their discretion under Rule 41(b): (1) the duration of the plaintiff’s failure
to comply with court orders; (2) whether the plaintiff was on notice that failure to comply
would result in dismissal; (3) whether the defendants are likely to be prejudiced by further
delay in the proceedings; (4) a balancing of the court’s interest in managing its docket with the
plaintiff’s interest in receiving a fair chance to be heard; and (5) the efficacy of lesser
sanctions. Spencer v. Doe, 139 F.3d 107, 112–14 (2d Cir. 1998). Generally, no single factor
is dispositive. See id. at 113 (citing Nita v. Conn. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 16 F.3d 482, 485 (2d
Cir. 1994)).
Most of the five relevant factors support dismissal in this case. Plaintiff has ignored the
-2-

last two orders issued by this Court and has taken no action in the case for the past six months.
Plaintiff was expressly warned in the Court’s Order To Show Cause earlier this month that his
failure to timely respond would result in an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiff’s interest in being heard thus appears to be non-existent, in contrast to the Court’s
strong and legitimate need to manage its docket. Inasmuch as the threat of dismissal failed to
incentivize plaintiff to resurrect his case, it seems highly unlikely that lesser sanctions would
be more effective. Finally, although defendants, having defaulted, will not be prejudiced by
further delays in the proceedings, all of the other factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissal.
The Court therefore concludes that, on balance, dismissal with prejudice is warranted here.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice for lack of
prosecution, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The Clerk is requested to docket this Memorandum and Order into the ECF case and to
close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
March 24, 2015

Roanne L. Mann

/s/
ROANNE L. MANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-