Piunti v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
1:19-cv-02483
S.D.N.Y.Feb 3, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Kyle Piunti filed a state-court complaint (Feb 25, 2019) alleging JP Morgan Chase withheld federal benefit deposits, manipulated account funds, and assessed hidden fees; the complaint omitted account numbers and transaction specifics.
- Chase removed the case to SDNY (Mar 20, 2019) and moved for a more definite statement; the Court ordered an amended complaint and later a second amended complaint specifying account numbers, dates, check amounts, and identified charges.
- Piunti filed a first amended complaint that still lacked the required specifics; at an Aug 1, 2019 conference Magistrate Judge Parker warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal and set an Aug 23 deadline for a second amended complaint.
- Piunti did not file the second amended complaint or otherwise communicate with the Court after the conference; Chase moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute and served Piunti with the motion and conference transcript.
- Magistrate Judge Parker issued an October 1, 2019 Report & Recommendation recommending dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); no party filed objections. The district court adopted the R&R and dismissed the action on Jan 21, 2020.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate under Rule 41(b) | Piunti asserted substantive claims about withheld benefits and fees but did not supply required factual specifics or comply with court orders | Chase sought dismissal due to Piunti's failure to comply with orders and to prosecute the suit | Court dismissed the action under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute |
| Whether Piunti had notice that noncompliance could lead to dismissal | Piunti cited extreme financial hardship but did not respond to the Court's warning or to the R&R | Chase served Piunti with the August 1 order, conference transcript, and dismissal letter | Court found clear notice was given and Piunti waived further review by not objecting |
| Whether Chase was prejudiced by further delay | Piunti did not present arguments showing lack of prejudice | Chase argued delay prejudiced its ability to defend and manage the case | Court concluded delay prejudiced Chase and supported dismissal |
| Whether a lesser sanction than dismissal would suffice | Piunti offered no communication or filings suggesting willingness to comply | Chase sought dismissal as appropriate given noncompliance | Court found no lesser sanction would be effective and dismissal was warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Baptiste v. Sommers, 768 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2014) (sets out the five-factor test for dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b))
- LeSane v. Hall's Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2001) (dismissal affirmed where plaintiff failed to comply with court orders)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (plaintiff's duty to prosecute and courts' authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
- Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758 (2d Cir. 2002) (failure to object to magistrate judge's R&R can waive further review when clear notice given)
- Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2000) (district court may excuse lack of objections only for plain error)
- United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1997) (failure to file objections precludes appellate review)