The Honor able John G. Koeltl, of the United States District Court for the Southern * District of Ne w York, sitting by designation. 08 -42 02 -cv, 08-42 04 -cv, 08-42 07 -cv, 08-42 09 -cv Br ow n, e t a l. v . G ene ra l Nutri tion Co., e t a l.

1 

### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS 2 

### FO R TH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT 3 4 

# S UMM ARY ORDE R 5 6 RUL I NGS BY S UM M ARY ORDE R DO NOT HAVE PRE CE DE NT I AL E FF E CT . CI T AT I ON TO S UM M ARY ORDE RS 7 FI L E D AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY T HI S COURT’ S L OCAL RUL E 3 2 . 1 AND 8 FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. I N A B R I EF O R O T HER P APER I N W H I C H A LI TI GA N T CI TES 9 A SU M M A R Y O R D E R , I N E A C H P A R A G R A P H I N W H IC H A C ITA T IO N A P P E A R S, A T L E A ST O N E C ITA TI O N M U ST 10 E IT H E R B E T O T H E F E D E R A L A P P E N D IX O R B E A C C O M P A N IE D B Y T H E N O T A T IO N : “ (S U M M A R Y O R D E R ).” 11 A PAR TY C I TI N G A SUM M A R Y O R D ER M U ST SERV E A C O PY O F TH A T S U M M A R Y O R D ER TO GETH ER W I TH 12 T H E PAP ER I N W H I C H TH E S U M M A R Y O R D ER I S C I TED O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL 13 U N LESS TH E SUM M A R Y O R D ER I S A V A I LAB LE I N A N ELECTR O N I C D A TAB A SE W H I C H I S P U B L I C LY 14 ACCE S S I B L E W I T H O U T P AYM E N T O F FEE ( S UCH AS T HE DA T ABAS E AVAI L ABL E AT 15 HT T P : / / W W W . C A 2 . U S C OU R T S . G OV / ) . I F N O C OP Y I S S E R V E D B Y R E A S ON OF T HE A V A I L A B I L I T Y OF T HE 16 OR D E R ON S U C H A D A T A B A S E , T HE C I T A T I ON M U S T I N C L U D E R E F E R E N C E T O T HA T D A T A B A S E A N D T HE 17 DOCK E T NUM BE R OF T HE CA S E I N W HI CH THE ORDE R W AS E NT E RE D. 18 19 At a stat ed ter mof the United S tate s Court of App eals for the Second Circuit, held at 20 the Daniel P atric k Moynih an United S tate s Courthouse, 500 P earl Str eet , in the City of New 21 York, on the 14 day of Dec em ber, two thousan d ni ne. th 22 23 PRES ENT: 24 WI L FRED F EI NB ERG, 25 DEB RA ANN L IVI NGSTON, 26 Circuit Judges , 27 J OHN G. KOEL TL 28 District Judge

. * 29

__________________________________________ 30 31 Sha

wn B ro wn , O zan

Cir ak, Luk e Smit

h, Th oma s H ann on , e a c h in div idu a lly and on be ha lf of a ll 32 others similarly situated, Har

ry Rodrigue z, indi vidually

and on beha lf of all other s simil arly situated, 33 An dr e w T oth , in div idu a lly and on be ha lf of a ll o the rs sim ila

rl y sit uate d, Ric ha

rd Z atta , in div idu a lly 34 and on beha lf of all other s simil arly situated, Ever ett Abrams indivi dually and on beha lf of all other s 35 simil arly

situated, 36 37 Plaintif fs-Appellant s, 38 39 v. 08-4202-c v, 08-4204-c v, 08- 40 4207-cv, 08- 4209-cv2 1 2 Gene ral Nutrition Companies, Inc., B odyonics, Ltd., d/b/a Pinnacle, Muscletec h Resear ch and 3 Deve lopment, Inc., AST Sport Science , Inc., Cy tody ne Te chnolog ies, Inc., Twin L aboratories, Inc., 4 Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc., 5 6 Defendants-A ppellee s. 7

__________________________________________ 8 9 F OR

APP EL LAN T: JOHND. GO L DSM I TH , K AT I E B RI

NSO N H I NT ON , T re nam, 10 Ke mke r, Sc ha rf , B ark in, F rye , O ’N e ill & Mu lli s, P.A .; C RA I G S. 11 HI L LARD, Stark & Stark 12 1 3 F O R

A P P E LLE E S : G O RD O NS C H M ID T , KE V INB A T IK , M c Gu i r e W o o d s LLP 14 15 Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w 16 York (Rakoff, J. ). 17 UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, A ND 18 DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be VA CA TED and the c ase RE M AN DE D to the 19 district court for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion. 20 Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt S ha wn B ro wn , th e le a d p la int if

f i n f our c on so lid ate d c a se s a g a ins t 21 Def

endant- Appellee Gene ral Nutrition Co. (“GN C”), appe als from a J uly 29, 2008 order

of the 22 district court dismissing the four case s with prejudice f

or fa ilure to prosec ute under Fe dera l Rule of 23 Civil Procedur e 41(b) . Ba sed on the re cord be fore us, the five f actor s used in this Ci rcuit to revie w a 24 district court’s dismissal for fa ilure to prosec ute do not milit ate in fa vor of suc h a dismissal and 25 require us to vacate the orde r her e. We assume the pa rties’ fa miliarity with the fac ts, procedur al 26 his tor

y , a nd iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. 27 I. Backg ro und 28 In 2002, the var ious plaintiffs filed class a ctions ag ainst GNC in state courts in F lorida, Ne w 29 York, Ne w J erse y , and Pennsy lvania. The se ca ses alleg ed consume r fr aud and unjust enrichment3 1 ag ainst GNC related to GNC’s sale of products conta ining c erta in steroid hormones. In J anuar y 2 2006, one of the manufa cture rs of the ster oid products, MuscleTe ch, filed f or bankr uptcy in the 3 Southern District of Ne w York. The rea fter, G NC filed notices of r emoval to fe dera l court in ea ch of 4 the state c ourt ac tions on the basis that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), the c ases we re “ related to” the 5 pendingbankruptc y case . In May

2006, the plaintiffs filed motions to remand the c ase ba ck to the 6 state c ourt s, and GN C f ile d mo tio ns to t

ra ns fe r a ll o f t

he c a se s f ro m th e ir re sp e c tiv e dis tr ic t c ourt s to 7 the Southern District of Ne w York. The plaintiffs’ motions were denied, GN C’s were g rante d, and 8 the ca ses wer e tra nsfer red to the Southern D istrict of NewYork. 9 The four case s were assig ned in 2006 and 2007 to the Southern D istrict of NewYork a s part 10 of pendingmultidi strict litigation proc eeding s (“MDL proce eding s”) r eg ardingpersona l injury 11 ari sin gfr om t he us e of e ph e dr a . Jam e s N iss se rv e s a s a Spe c ia l Ma ste r i n th e se pr oc e e din g s. 12 Severa l Case Mana g ement Or ders ( “CMO”) set forth the r ules for motions prac tice in the 13 MD Lpr oc e e din g s. CMO No . 1 se ts f or th p ro c e dure s a

nd tim e s f or the se rv ingand

fi lin gof pa pe rs . 14 CMO No . 3 ¶ 8 e xpla ins that, b e c a us e of the larg e numbe r o f p e nd ingand pr os pe c tiv e mot ion s in 15 the multidis trict litigation, “the Court has asked the Special Master to reviewand summarize motion 16 paper s befor e they are considere d by

the Court. Acc ording ly , on the day when the briefingof any 17 motion is completed, the movingparty is directed to e -mail the Specia l Master a complete se t of the 18 motion papers of a ll parties.” 19 Most releva nt here , CMO No. 10 ¶ 5 instructs “[a]fter ser ving a nd filing pa

pers within the 20 tim e s p ro vid e d in Ca se Mana g e me nt O rd e r N o. 1, the mov ingpa rt y mus t de liv e r c ourt e sy

c op ie s to 21 Chambers a

nd send in PDF for

mat a complete set of pape rs, includinganswe ringpaper s, to the 22 Special Master ; the motion will then be he ard at the next s tatus confe renc e not less than one w eek4 1 afte r the c ourtesy copies have bee n delivere d.” CMO No. 10 ¶ 5 a lso instructs the moving par ty to, 2 within one business day of filing , “send a ll other parties who have a ppear ed a list of ea ch moving 3 paper

to be consider ed by

the Court.” F ina lly , CM O N o. 10 ¶ 5 wa rn s p art ie s th at “ [n]o p a

pe rs wi ll 4 be conside red by the Court unless they

are listed as specifie d” in the CMO. 5 In Augus t and Se pte mbe r 2 00 7, GN C and B ro wn e ng a g e d in

an e ma il e xch ang e wi th N iss in 6 which plaintiffs inquired a bout filing a

rema nd motion addressingthe district court’s subjec t matter 7 jurisd ic tio n. On Se pte mbe r 2 8, 20 07 , th e pa rt ie s e nte re d into a

Joint Stip ulatio n o f D ism iss a l w ith 8 Prejudice, which dismissed the plaintiffs’ cla ims ag ainst GNC that related to GNC’s sale of 9 MuscleTe ch produc ts. On October 9, 2007, Niss emailed the pa rties a br iefingschedule for 10 pla int if

fs ’ a nti c ipate d r e mand

mot ion s in

a ll f our o f t he c a se s p e nd ingin t

he MD Lpr oc e e din g s. The 11 e ma il p ro vid e d, in r e le va nt p art , a s f

oll ow s: 12 In light of [plaintiffs’] e-mail copied be low, I h er eb y s et t he brie fingschedule for 13 pla int if fs ’ r e ma nd mot ion s in

a ll f our c a se s p e nd ing in t

he Ep he dr a

MD La s f oll ow s: 14 15 October 29 L ast day

for plaintiffs to file movingpaper s 16 November 21 L ast day

for de fenda

nts to file answering pa

pers 1 7 N o v e mb e r 2 9 L a s td ay f

o r p l a i n t i f f s t o f i l e a r e p l y, i f any, an d t o c o mp l y 1 8 w it h th e mo v in g p arty ’ s o b li g ati o n s un d e r CM O # 1 §§ I V & 19 VI I I .C, CMO#3 ¶8 & CMO#10 ¶5. 20 Dec ember 6 Ora l argument 21 22 The Court will not c onsider substantive motions unless and until it denies the re mand 23 motion. All parties should read a nd follow the CMO pr ovisions I ’ve cited. For your 24 c onve nie nc e , I ’v e atta c he d c op ie s. 25 26 Plaintiffs filed rema nd motions on October 29, 2007, and G NC filed brief

s in oppositi on. 27 On

No ve mbe r 2 8, 20 07 , p la int if fs e ma ile d N iss to m ake a joi nt r e qu e st f

or an e xten sio n o f t ime 28 for plaintiffs to file the ir reply brief, indicating that the pa rties wer e “in the pr ocess of attempting 29 to s c he du le a me diatio n in

mid -D e c e mbe r o r Janu ary .” Ni ss gra nte d a n e xten sio n o f “ the tim e5 1 for f

iling plaintiffs’ r eply

and delivering the courte sy copies to January

31, 2008.” Plaintiffs 2 never

filed a r eply

brief, nor did they furnish a list of the pa

pers to be submitted to the cour t or 3 provide a

set of pape rs to Niss or to the district court as r equire d by CMO No. 10, which wa s 4 bo th r e fe re nc e d in Ni ss’ s e ma il o f O c tob e r 9 , 2 00 7 a nd atta c he d to it. As a

re su lt o f t

he fa ilure to 5 submit papers to Niss and to the district court, the r emand motions submitt ed by the plaintiffs 6 wer e neve r plac ed on the a g enda f or any status confe renc e and w ere never prese nted to the 7 district court for consideration. 8 On

June 4, 20 08 , th e dis tr ic t c ourt iss ue d a No tic e of Mo tio n to Di smi ss 2 3 c a se s, 9 inc lud ingthe fo ur at is su e he re , w ithpr e

jud ic e fo r “ fa il[ure ] to p ro se c ute

. . . a s r e qu ir e d b y thi s 10 Court’s case manag ement orde rs.” The Notice of Motion to Dism iss indicated that the cour t was 11 instituting this ac tion “on its own moti on” and r equeste d that paper s in oppositi on to the motion 12 be submitted by J uly 7, 2009. Plaintiffs filed an untimely response on J uly

9, 2008. On J uly

14, 13 2008, the par ties appea red be fore the district court judg e, who issued a n oral opinion indicating 14 that he had c onsidered sa nctions and other a lternative pe nalties, but decide d ag ainst them 1 5 b e c a

u s e “ p l a i n t i f

f s ’ c o un s e l n o to n l y v i o l at e d th e o r d e r s o f

th i s C o urtr e p e at e d l y an d e g r e g i o u s l y, 16 but did so because plaintiffs’ counse l rea lly had aba ndoned any

desire to move the se cour t case s 17 forwa

rd, except to the extent he could try to ext ort through mediation some nuisance value of 18 settlement.” On July 27, 2008, the district court issued a n order dismiss ing the Plaintiffs’ case s 19 for “ failure to prosecute them as re quired by briefingschedule s set by the Court and the 20 applicable case manag ement orde rs.” Plaintiffs timely appea led, and the c ases we re c onsolidated 21 on

thi s a pp e a l by sti pu latio n o f t

he pa rt ie s a nd or de r o f t his Court

. 22 II. Anal

y sisWe note that plaintiffs brief ly argue on appe al that the district cour t did not have 1 jurisd ic tio n o ve r t

his c a se and

the re fo re c ou ld n ot d ism iss it w ithpr e jud ic e . B e c a

us e pla int if

fs ’ jurisdictional argument is statutory and not constitutional, we may exercise hy

pothetical jurisdiction and decide the merits of the Rule 41(b) question without addre ssing the jur isdictional question, which we leave to the district court in the first instance

. Aj lan i v . Ch e rto ff , 545 F.3d 22 9, 23 7 ( 2d

Cir . 2 00 8) ; Am im bo la v . A sh c ro ft , 378 F.3d 173, 180 ( 2d Cir. 2004). We add, howeve r, that we reg ard w ith skepticism the plaintiffs’ argument that once the parties stipulated to dismi ss claims ag ainst GNC relating to GNC’s sa le of Muscle Tec h products, the district cour t no longe r had subjec t matter jurisdiction beca use this case was no long er “ related to” a bankruptc y

proce eding . Gene rally , the exist ence of fe dera l jurisdiction depends on the fa cts as they exis t when the a ction is commence d. Ne wm an -Gre e n, In c . v . A lfo nz o- Larra in , 4 90 U. S. 82 6, 83 0 ( 19 89 ); FDIC v. Four Star Holding Co. , 178 F.3d 97, 100 ( 2d Cir. 1999). As stated, howeve r, we leavethe jurisdictional question to the district court to decide in the first instance. Simi larl y , w e le ave pla int if fs ’ s tatut or

y a bs te nti on argume nt f

or the dis tr ic t c ourt

. 6 1 We reviewa district cour t’s dismiss al of a

case for f ailure to prose cute f

or abuse of 2 discretion. Ruzsa v. Rubenste in &Sendy A ttys at Law , 5 20 F .3 d 1 76 , 1 77 (2 d Ci r. 20 08 ); W ynder 3 v. Mc

Mahon , 360 F.3d 73, 76 ( 2d Cir. 2004). We review the district court’s de cision by 4 e mpl oyinga

fi ve -f a c tor ana ly sis : 5 [whether] (1) the plaintiff' s failure to prosec ute ca used a de lay

of sig nificant 6 duratio n; ( 2) pla int if f w a s g ive n n oti c e that f ur the r d e lay

wo uld re sult in 7 dismiss al; (3) defe ndant was likely to be prejudice d by further delay ; (4) the 8 ne e d to a lle viate c ourt c a le nd ar c on g e sti on

wa s ca re fu lly ba lanc e d a g a ins t 9 plaintiff' s rig ht to an opportunit y for a day in court; and (5) the trial cour t 10 a de qu ate ly a sse sse d th e e ff

ic a c y of le sse r s anc tio ns . 11 12 Ru

zsa , 5 2 0 F. 3 d

at1 7 7 (qu o t i n g U.S. ex

rel Drakev. Norden Sys., I nc. , 375 F.3d 248, 254 ( 2d 13 Cir. 2004)). None of the five fac tors is disposi tive, and we revie w the dismissal in li g ht of the 14 rec ord as a

whole. Drake , 375 F.3d at 254. 15 Al tho ugh w e re c ognize the dif fi c ult ie s th at di stric t c ourt s f a c e in m ana g ingthe ir

do c ke ts, 16 e sp e c ia lly

in t he c onte xt of

mul tid istri c t li tig atio n, the fi ve -f a c tor te st d oe s n ot p e rm it u s to 17 conclude that dismiss al with prejudice here was pe rmissible. 1 18 Wit h reg ard to the f irst fac tor, we a sk (a) whether the delay can be attributed to the7 1 plaintiffs, and (b) whether the delay was of significant duration. Drake , 375 F.3d at 255. The 2 delay

here was oc casione d when the pla intiffs failed to file a PDF ver sion of their pape rs with the 3 Special Master and a c ourtesy

copy with the district court and to notify both that briefingwas 4 complete, a s require d by CMO No. 10. The de lay can be calc ulated to be f

rom J anuar

y 31, 2008, 5 when plaintiffs’ reply was due , through J une 4, 2008, whe n the district court introduce d the 6 motion to di smiss. This Circuit has noted that dela y of a “ matter of months” ma y war rant 7 dismiss al, Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp. , 6 82 F .2 d 3 7, 43 (2 d Ci r. 19 82 ), so pla int if fs ’ 8 fo ur -m onth d e lay c ann ot b e sa id t o b e of

ins ignif ic ant d ur atio n f or thi s a na ly sis

. 9 Howeve r, with reg ard to fa ctor two, plaintiffs we re not g iven notice that f urther de lay 10 would result in dismiss al. This fac tor requir es us to examine whether there was notice that 11 dis mis sa l w ou ld r e su lt i f t he re wa s “

further delay .” Drake , 375 F.3d at 255. The district court 12 stated at the he aringon J uly 18, 2008 that plaintiffs’ counse l had violated the c ourt’s orde rs 13 “ repe ate dly

and e g re g iou sly .” Th e c ourt , h ow e ve r, pr ov ide d n o in fo rm atio n a s to sp e c if ic 14 instances of

such violations of court or ders, nor did it specify

what, if a ny , war nings ha d 15 previously

issued, or sug g est what the pla intiffs could do to avoid dismissal. See id. (findingthat 16 la c k o f n oti c e c ut a g a ins t di smi ssa l whe n tria l c ourt g ave pla int if

f l itt le op po rt

un ity to s ave c a se 17 afte r notice of dismiss al). B ased on the rec ord bef ore us, the f

irst notice that plaintiffs re ceive d 18 that their ca se wa s in dang er of beingdismiss ed wa s when the district c ourt issued the June 4, 19 2008 motion to di smiss for failure to prosecute . This did not suffice to put plaintiffs on notice 20 that future inatte nti on to t he lit ig atio n a

nd fa ilurepr omp tly

to c omp ly

wi th c ourt

or de rs wo uld 21 result in dismiss al, and it did not provide them with the opportunity to cure any

previous 2 2 d e f

i c i e n c y.8 1 GNC argues that, with reg ard to fa ctor thre e, whe ther it was pr ejudiced by the delay , the 2 district court’s findingthat it “put off allowing[GNC] to file for summar y judgme nt” was 3 sufficie nt prejudice . Although w e have found that “pr ejudice to de fenda nts resulting f

rom 4 unrea sonable de lay may be pre sumed,” ther e ar e no indications that the de lay here , for e x ample, 5 “incr ease d the litigation costs def endants ha d to bear

or re duced (perha

ps due to dec aying 6 evidenc e) the ir likelihood of succe ss on the merits.” LeSane v. H all’s Sec. Analy

st, Inc. , 239 7 F .3 d 2 06 , 2 10 (2 d Ci r. 20 01 ). Thus , w e fi nd that if the re wa s p re

jud ic e to G

NC , it wa s mi nim a l. 8 In assessingthe fourth f actor , we take into consideration the ty pe of de lay

perpe trated by 9 the plaintiffs. When the dela y was “ silent and unobtrusive rather than ve x atious and 10 burd e ns ome ,” me anin gthe pla int if f s imp ly “ did no t make su

bmi ssi on s r e qu ir e d b y

the c ourt ” 11 ins te a d o f “ sw amp[i ng ] the c ourt wi th i rr e le va

nt o r o bs tr

uc tio nis t f

ili ng s, ” thi s f

a c tor te nd s to 12 favor

the plaintiff. Id. Indeed, “ [t ]here must be compe lling evide nce of an extreme e ffe ct on court c ong estion befor e a litig ant' s rig ht to be hear d is subrog ated to the c onvenienc e of the 13 14 court.” Lucas v. Miles , 84 F.3d 532, 535 ( 2d Cir. 1996). Althoug h we a re sy mpathetic to the fa ct 15 that the district courts must have discr etion to manag e their doc kets, particula rly in the context of 16 mul tid istri c t li tig atio n, he re the re is n o e vid e nc e that th e pla int if fs a bu siv e ly c ontr ibute d to 17 cale ndar c ong estion. 18 F ina lly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt e xpre ssl y no te d th at it

“ c on sid e re d o the r a lte rn ativ e s” to 19 dismiss ing the case , but ultim ately decide d upon dismiss al bec ause “plaintiffs’ counse l rea lly had 20 abandone d any desire to move the se cour t case s forwa

rd.” Without the benefit of know ing what 21 sanctions wer e conside red a nd reje cted, howe ver, it is difficult for us to re view this decision 22 under a

n abuse of

discretion standa

rd. See M

artens v. Thomann , 273 F.3d 159, 180 ( 2d Cir.P l ai n t i ff s h av e a d d i t i o n al l y

re qu es t edi nth ei r b ri ef

th atb ec au s e o f s t at em en t s J u d ge 2 Rakoff ma de questioningthe merits of plaintiffs’ case that, upon rema nd, their ca se be a ssigne d to a diffe rent district judg e. We find no basis for plaintiffs’ re quest. Liteky v. U nited States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“ [J ]udi cial ruling s alone a lmost never constitute a va lid basis for a bias or pa rt ia lity mot ion .” ); see also United States v . Johnson , 567 F.3d 40, 54 ( 2d Cir. 2009) (re jecting de fe nd ant’ s r e qu e st f

or ne w j ud g e on

re mand ); Kensington Int’l Ltd. v. Republic of Congo , 461 F.3d 238, 245 ( 2d Cir. 2006) (same ). 9 1 2001) (notingthat “a de cision to dismi ss stands a better chanc e on appe al if the a ppellate c ourt 2 has the be nefit of the district c ourt’s re asoning ”). 3 In sum, we find that a r eview of the five f actor s require s us to vacate the district court’s 4 decision to dismiss t he plaintiffs’ c ase w ith prejudice f or fa ilure to prosec ute under Rule 41(b). 5 Suc h a

ru lin gmay

be jus tif ie d in the futur e in t

he e ve nt p la int if

fs ’ c ouns e l’ s f

a ilure to p ro se c ute 6 imposes further delay in connec tion with thi s liti g ation. The pre sent rec ord, howe ver, c onsidered 7 a s a

wh ole , d oe s n ot p ro vid e an a de qu ate ba sis to u ph old the dis tric t c ourt ’s jud g me nt. 8 F o r

th e f o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , th e j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y VA CA TED and 9 RE M AN DE D for pr ocee dings c onsistent with thi s opinion. 2 10 11 12 FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 14 15 By :__________________________