Chen et al v. 2425 Broadway Chao Restaurant, LLC et al

Filing 306

ORDER: Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all deadlines, and close this case. The Clerk of Court is further directed to serve this Order by certified mail on Plaintiffs and note proof of service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 8/27/2020) (ks)

Case 1:16-cv-05735-GHW Document 306 Filed 08/27/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------X
:
JIANJUN CHEN, et al., on behalf of themselves and
:
others similarly situated,
:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
:
-against:
WMK 89TH STREET LLC, et al.,
:
:
Defendants. :
:
------------------------------------------------------------------:
X

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 8/27/2020

1:16-cv-5735-GHW
ORDER

GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge:
Plaintiffs commenced this action on July 20, 2016, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law by numerous defendants. Dkt. No. 1. Only two
defendants appeared in this case, and the Court granted summary judgment in their favor on March
18, 2019. Dkt. No. 185. In the four years this case has been pending, Plaintiffs have taken no
meaningful steps to further their claims against the remaining defendants, and any efforts that have
been made were provoked by the Court’s orders to show cause as to why this action should not be
dismissed for failure to prosecute. 1 See Dkt. Nos. 217 and 248.
Plaintiffs’ counsel moved to withdraw from the case on June 18, 2020. Dkt. No. 288. After
granting counsel’s motion, the Court informed pro se Plaintiffs that the deadline for filing any
subsequent applications for default judgment against the remaining defendants was August 7, 2020,
and that if it did not hear from Plaintiffs by that date, it would dismiss the case for failure to
prosecute. Dkt. No. 305. As of today, Plaintiffs have neither moved for default judgment in

In response to the Court’s orders to show cause, Plaintiffs moved for default judgment against the remaining
defendants. See Dkt. Nos. 257 and 259. However, this application was inadequate for reasons unrelated to this order.
See Dkt. No. 285.

1

Case 1:16-cv-05735-GHW Document 306 Filed 08/27/20 Page 2 of 3

response to that order nor otherwise manifested an intent to continue prosecuting this case. They
have offered no explanation for their failure to do so.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to
comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim
against it.” “Although the text of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) expressly addresses only the case in which a
defendant moves for dismissal of an action, it is unquestioned that Rule 41(b) also gives the district
court authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s case sua sponte for failure to prosecute.” LeSane v. Hall’s Sec.
Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630
(1962)).
Although dismissal is “a harsh remedy to be utilized only in extreme situations,” Theilmann v.
Rutland Hospital, Inc., 455 F.2d 853, 855 (2d Cir. 1972), “the authority to invoke it for failure to
prosecute is vital to the efficient administration of judicial affairs and provides meaningful access for
other prospective litigants to overcrowded courts.” Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d 37, 42
(2d Cir. 1982). When determining whether to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b), the Court
must consider: (1) the duration of Plaintiffs’ failures; (2) whether Plaintiffs have received notice that
further delays would result in dismissal; (3) whether defendant is likely to be prejudiced by further
delay; (4) a balancing of the need to alleviate court calendar congestion and a party’s right to due
process; and (5) the efficacy of lesser sanctions. U.S. ex rel. Drake v. Norden Sys., Inc., 375 F.3d 248,
254 (2d Cir. 2004). However, “a district court is not required to discuss each of the factors on the
record.” Martens v. Thomann, 273 F.3d 159, 180 (2d Cir. 2001); accord Dinkins v. Ponte, No. 15-cv-6304
(PAE) (JCF), 2016 WL 4030919, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2016) (“[C]ourts need not discuss each
factor, though the reasoning underlying their decisions should be apparent.”).

2

Case 1:16-cv-05735-GHW Document 306 Filed 08/27/20 Page 3 of 3

It has been over four years since this case was filed, and Plaintiffs have only litigated the case
against these defendants after being prompted by the Court through its orders to show cause. Dkt.
Nos. 217 and 248. The Court provided Plaintiffs with a clear warning that further delays in litigating
their remaining claims would result in dismissal, see Dkt. No. 305 and July 8, 2020 Hearing
Transcript at 56:18-23, and even that message has failed to spur them to action. Further, because
Plaintiffs have failed to take meaningful steps against the defendants who remain in this case, “it
would be unfair to the numerous other litigants awaiting the Court’s attention to permit this suit to
remain on the Court’s docket.” Antonio v. Beckford, No. 05-cv-2225 (KMK), 2006 WL 2819598, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2006). In light of Plaintiffs’ demonstrated disinterest in prosecuting their claims
against these defendants, the Court does not believe that any lesser sanction other than dismissal
would be effective. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute
pursuant to Rule 41(b).
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all deadlines, and
close this case. The Clerk of Court is further directed to serve this Order by certified mail on
Plaintiffs and note proof of service on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 27, 2020
New York, New York

_____________________________________
GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge

3