The following excerpt is from Gaeta v. Inc., 15-1564-cv (2nd Cir. 2016):
The district court denied the motion because of plaintiff's failure to prosecute, employing the analysis applicable to a Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss. On appeal, both sides analyze the denial of the motion to reopen as a grant of a Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss. Accordingly, in reviewing the district court's decision, we employ a Rule 41(b) analysis and review for abuse of discretion. Lewis v. Rawson, 564 F.3d 569, 575 (2d Cir. 2009).
Although review for abuse of discretion "suggests great deference," we have recognized that a Rule 41(b) dismissal is a "harsh remedy [that] is appropriate only in extreme situations." Lucas v. Miles, 84 F.3d 532, 535 (2d Cir. 1996). In reviewing a Rule 41(b) dismissal, we consider whether: (1) 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
Page 4
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. Lewis, 564 F.3d at 576. No single factor is generally dispositive, and we ultimately review the dismissal in light of the record as a whole. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Drake v. Norden Sys., Inc., 375 F.3d 248, 254 (2d Cir. 2004).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.