Hernandez-Jimenez v. Wrap-N-Run LLC
1:14-cv-01061
S.D.N.Y.Jul 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Aldrin Hernandez-Jimenez sued under the FLSA and NYLL seeking unpaid minimum and overtime wages.
- After fact discovery, Magistrate Judge Fox ordered a joint pretrial order by Dec 29, 2015; the parties failed to file it.
- Judge Fox extended the deadline to May 2, 2016 and warned sanctions could follow; no joint pretrial order was filed.
- Magistrate Judge Fox issued an R. & R. recommending dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and 16(f).
- Plaintiff promptly objected, explaining he believed he had timely filed the pretrial order and that the omission was a filing mistake; he submitted objections within the deadline.
- District Judge Carter rejected the R. & R., finding no willfulness, bad faith, or pattern of misconduct and directing the parties to file the Pretrial Order by August 1, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for failure to comply with pretrial-order deadlines is warranted | Hernandez-Jimenez said he believed he had filed the joint pretrial order and that omission was a mistake; he promptly objected to the R. & R. | Defendants contended noncompliance warranted dismissal and sanctions under Rules 41(b)/16(f) | Court rejected dismissal; ordered parties to file the pretrial order anew |
| Whether plaintiff's conduct showed willfulness, bad faith, or serious fault | Argued mistake, single missed deadline, prompt corrective action | Defendants argued missed deadlines justified severe sanction | Court found no willfulness/bad faith; one missed deadline not a pattern |
| Whether plaintiff had notice that dismissal could be imposed | Plaintiff noted he was warned about sanctions but not dismissal specifically | Defendants relied on general warning about sanctions | Court held there was no clear notice that dismissal would result and cited precedent requiring notice |
| Whether defendants were prejudiced and whether lesser sanctions suffice | Plaintiff argued defendants suffered no prejudice and may have contributed to delay | Defendants asserted ongoing delay justified dismissal | Court found no prejudice, alternatives to dismissal were adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnette v. Time Warner, 997 F.2d 1023 (2d Cir. 1993) (dismissal is a harsh remedy reserved for extreme situations)
- Mitchell v. Lyons Prof'l Servs. Inc., 708 F.3d 463 (2d Cir. 2013) (dismissal with prejudice requires willfulness, bad faith, or serious fault)
- Lucas v. Miles, 84 F.3d 532 (2d Cir. 1996) (five-factor test for reviewing Rule 41(b) dismissals)
- Colon v. Mack, 56 F.3d 5 (2d Cir. 1995) (district court discretion to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
- Neufeld v. Neufeld, 172 F.R.D. 115 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (dismissing where plaintiffs showed no explanation and demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance)