Louis Galiotti v. Board of Directors of Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. New York
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 6:25-cv-06104
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Louis Galiotti,

Plaintiff, Case # 25-CV-6104-FPG v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Board of Directors of Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

This action was commenced in February 2025, when Plaintiff Louis Galiotti filed a complaint seeking relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff has taken no action in this case since February 28, 2025, and it does not appear that any of the Defendants have been served. See ECF No. 5. In light of Plaintiff’s inaction, on July 24, 2025, this Court issued a Text Order (ECF No. 7) directing Plaintiff to submit a letter informing the Court of the status of the litigation and whether he intends to continue pursuing this action. To date, the Court has received no response. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that if a civil case has been pending for more than six months and a party is not in compliance with the directions of the district court or if no action has been taken by the parties in six months, the Court may order the party to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s directives. Loc. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp., No. 10-CV-591, 2012 WL 2178924, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. May 15, 2012) (“It is axiomatic that a party to an action pending in a federal district court, whether a plaintiff or defendant, is required to comply with legitimate court directives.”); Yulle v. Barkley, No. 05-CV-0802, 2007 WL 2156644, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 25, 2007) (“Th[e] power to dismiss [under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)] may be exercised when necessary to achieve orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”). Because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court by August 7, 2025, as ordered in the Court’s July 24, 2025 Text Order (ECF No. 7), Plaintiffis hereby ordered to show cause, in writing, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s directives. By December 22, 2025, Plaintiff must file a written response explaining (a) why he did not respond to the Court’s July 24, 2025 Text Order and (b) whether, in light of his failure to communicate with the Court for more than eight months, he wishes to continue pursuing his claims. If Plaintiff fails to file his written response by December 22, 2025, the Court may treat his noncompliance as a failure to prosecute and may dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1995) (“The district court [] has the power under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court order, treating the noncompliance as a failure to prosecute.”). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Rochester, New York November 20, 2025

United States District Yadge Western District of New York