United States District Court, S.D. New York
June 10, 2004.
ADA RODRIGUEZ, et ano., Plaintiffs,
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge
Defendants move to dismiss the action with prejudice on the
grounds that plaintiffs have failed diligently to prosecute the
action. Plaintiffs have not filed any opposition to the motion.
Indeed, plaintiffs have refused to accept copies of the motion
papers sent to them by certified mail. See letter, Mr.
Schneier, dated June 7, 2004.
The unfortunate history of this action, brought by litigants
perhaps aptly characterized by the defendants as "prolific," is
set out in the moving affidavit. Suffice it to say that
plaintiffs, while represented by counsel, failed to make initial
disclosures as required by Rule 26 and, in response to
defendants' letter pointing that fact out to the Court, fired
their attorney. The Court then stayed the action and extended the
discovery period for months to allow plaintiffs to obtain
counsel. Plaintiffs then sought unsuccessfully to block their
depositions on the ground that the City had conducted Gen. Mun.
L. § 50-h examinations prior to the commencement of the action.
Months more went by. Plaintiffs conducted no discovery and
failed to cooperate in defendants' efforts to do so. They made no
application for the appointment of pro bono counsel until after
this motion was made, this despite the fact that the Court in
January 2004 pointed out their right to seek such an appointment.
They then failed again to appear for their depositions.
Plaintiffs have been amply warned. The Court's January 14, 2004
order stated that "plaintiffs must proceed with this action as
best they can or suffer dismissal." It set a schedule which
required completion of discovery by June 1, 2004. And it warned
that "[a]ny failure to comply with this or any other order of
this Court may result in the imposition of sanctions, which may
include dismissal of the action with prejudice." Knowing of the
June 1 discovery cutoff, they failed to appear for their
depositions on May 27 and 28, 2004. At this point, it is readily apparent that plaintiffs who are
pursuing several other cases in this Court are not prepared to
go forward with this action in an appropriate and diligent
manner. They have claimed more than their fair share of the
resources of the Court.
The motion to dismiss is granted, substantially on the grounds
set forth in the motion papers and as set forth above. The action
dismissed with prejudice.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.