Source: https://casetext.com/case/thomas-v-news-comics
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:16:22+00:00

Document:
Thomas v. News & Comics, Inc.
MICHAEL THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. NEWS & COMICS, INC., Defendant. NEWS & COMICS, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. SB NEW YORK, INC., Third-Party Defendant.
Pro se plaintiff filed the instant action on May 4, 2010. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
On March 22, 2011, in accordance with the undersigned's chamber practices, N&C filed a letter requesting a pre-motion conference to discuss its proposed motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 27, Motion for Pre-Motion Conference by N&C.) On March 23, 2011, SB New York joined in N&Cs application for a pre-motion conference. (See ECF No. 28, Motion for Pre-Motion Conference by SB New York.) Plaintiff did not submit a letter in opposition to those motions for a pre-motion conference.
In its June 20, 2011 Order, the court warned that if defendant or third-party defendant failed to re-serve its motion for summary judgment in compliance with Local Civil Rule 56.2, the court could deny the relevant motion. (See Order dated 6/20/2011.) The court is perplexed as to why SB New York failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 56.2 even after the court explicitly described the deficiencies in SB New York's initial proof of service (see id.), and admonishes counsel for third-party defendant that all of the court's orders are to be strictly adhered to. Despite SB New York's inexplicable failure to obey the court's order, however, the court will dismiss this action with prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action for the reasons stated below.
N&C served plaintiff with a copy of this order on October 11, 2011. (See ECF No. 46, Declaration of Service, dated 10/11/2011.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to Show Cause.
(1) the plaintiff's failure to prosecute caused a delay of significant duration; (2) plaintiff was given notice that further delay would result in dismissal; (3) defendant was likely to be prejudiced by further delay; (4) the need to alleviate court calendar congestion was carefully balanced against plaintiff's right to an opportunity for a day in court; and (5) the trial court adequately assessed the efficacy of lesser sanctions.
Id. (quoting United States ex rel. Drake v. Norden Sys., Inc., 375 F.3d 248, 254 (2d Cir. 2004)). No one factor is dispositive. Id. In weighing the five factors, the court must consider the record of the entire case as a whole. Id. A court may find the standard for dismissal satisfied where it finds a "pattern of dilatory tactics" or "an action lying dormant with no significant activity to move it." Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d 37, 42 (2d Cir. 1982).
All five factors weigh in favor of dismissal. First, plaintiff has neither advanced his claims nor opposed the motions for summary judgment filed by N&C and SB New York.Instead, plaintiff allowed his case to lie dormant with no activity on his part since his appearance at a deposition scheduled approximately one year ago in February 2011. That length of time is sufficient to justify dismissal. See e.g., Antonio v. Beckford, No. 05 Civ. 2225, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71859, at *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2006) (citing decisions dismissing cases for delays of three months or more). Second, plaintiff was given notice that further inactivity could lead to dismissal based on the unopposed motions for summary judgment and for failure to prosecute; the court specifically ordered plaintiff to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute on October 11, 2011 but he failed to respond. (See Order dated 10/11/2011.) Third, applicable case law establishes a presumption that a plaintiff's unreasonable delay will normally prejudice a defendant. See, e.g., Shannon v. Gen. Elec. Co., 186 F.3d 186, 195 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Lyell Theatre Corp., 682 F.2d at 43). Fourth, this dormant case has remained on the court's docket with no indication that plaintiff will move it forward in the future. Finally, no lesser sanction than dismissal is likely to be effective in light of repeated plaintiff's failures to respond to the defendant and third-party defendant's motions for summary judgment and to the court's orders directing plaintiff to take action or face dismissal of his action.
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. N&Cs third-party complaint against SB New York is also dismissed as it was predicated on claims of indemnification and contribution in the event N&C was found liable to plaintiff. Counsel for N&C is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order on pro se plaintiff and file a declaration of service on the docket. Any appeal must be filed within thirty days after judgment is entered in this case. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment dismissing this action and to close this case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.