On March 11, 2025, District Judge Margaret M. Garnett dismissed SafeCast Limited’s (“SafeCast”) patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) because SafeCast failed to secure counsel. SafeCast Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 23-CV-05446 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025).
SafeCast had been represented by the law firm Ramey LLP at the outset of that case. However, Ramey LLP moved to withdraw as SafeCast’s counsel because SafeCast failed to pay its fees. Id. at *2. The court granted Ramey LLP’s motion and instructed SafeCast’s CEO to secure other counsel or voluntarily dismiss the case within 30 days. Id. After 30 days had passed, SafeCast still had not secured other counsel or provided the court with any communication. Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action “[i]f [a] plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or a court order.” Id. Judge Garnett noted that a district court considering a Rule 41(b) dismissal must weigh five factors: (1) the duration of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court order; (2) whether the plaintiff was on notice that failure to comply would result in dismissal; (3) whether defendants are likely to be prejudiced by further delay in the proceedings; (4) a balancing of the court’s interest in managing its docket with the plaintiff’s interest in receiving a fair chance to be heard; and (5) whether the judge has adequately considered a sanction less drastic than dismissal. Id. at *2 (citing LeSane v. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209–210 (2d Cir. 2001)). Judge Garnett also noted that courts need only provide an explanation for the dismissal rather than consider each factor since no one factor is dispositive. Id. (citing Martens v. Thomann, 273 F.3d 159, 180 (2d Cir. 2001)).
The court found that SafeCast had been sufficiently warned that it must retain counsel within the allotted timeframe or risk having its case dismissed. Furthermore, in light of a PTAB decision effectively extinguishing SafeCast’s infringement claim, the court found that its interest in maintaining its docket outweighed SafeCast’s interest in being heard and that continuing the case would prejudice Microsoft. Id.
The case is SafeCast Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 23-CV-05446 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025).
