Guo v. A Canaan Sushi Inc.

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 63 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 62 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Jianshe Guo. On April 5, 2019, the Court dismissed this case for failure to prosecute. See Docket No. 62. On April 9, 2019, P laintiff's counsel filed a three-page motion for reconsideration, arguing in essence that Plaintiff should not be punished for counsel's own failures. See Docket No. 64. The Court DENIES the motion primarily for three reasons. The Cl erk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 63 and to mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Defendant Jia Zhuang Wang. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/10/2019) (ne) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
JIANSHE GUO,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
A CANAAN SUSHI INC., et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

18-CV-4147 (JMF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
On April 5, 2019, the Court dismissed this case for failure to prosecute. See Docket No.
62. On April 9, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a three-page motion for reconsideration, arguing
— in essence — that Plaintiff should not be punished for counsel’s own failures. See Docket
No. 64. The Court DENIES the motion primarily for three reasons.
First, “[u]nder our system of representative litigation, each party is deemed bound by the
acts of his lawyer-agent.” Dodson v. Runyon, 957 F. Supp. 465, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (quoting
Irwin v. Dep’t of Veteran Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 92 (1990)), aff’d, 152 F.3d 917 (2d Cir. 1998).
Second, accepting for the sake of argument that Plaintiff himself is personally blameless for
counsel’s failure to prosecute his case, Plaintiff’s counsel has articulated no prejudice that
Plaintiff would face by being required to re-file the suit, as Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges he
can. See Docket No. 64, at 2. To the extent that re-filing would “delay Plaintiff’s time to
recover the wage owed to him,” see id., Plaintiff’s counsel have no one to blame but themselves.
Third, there is some indication in the record that Plaintiff himself is not committed to pursuing
this lawsuit. See Docket No. 15 (letter from Plaintiff’s counsel that Plaintiff Guo submitted “a

Sworn Affidavit . . . indicating that he wishes to withdraw the case”); Docket No. 48 (letter from
Plaintiff’s counsel informing the Court that he was unable to reach Plaintiff for two months,
including when counsel “went to knock on Plaintiff’s apartment door”). In this context,
requiring Plaintiff to re-file any lawsuit will ensure that he is committed to pursuing the matter,
not to mention pursuing it with his current counsel.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 63 and to mail a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to Defendant Jia Zhuang Wang.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 10, 2019
New York, New York

__________________________________
JESSE M. FURMAN
United States District Judge

2