# Galiotti

> District Court, W.D. New York · November 20, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11206727

## Case

- **Full name:** 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
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11206727

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11206727. Public record. Not legal advice.