Rogers v. Burrito Y Mas, Corp
Rogers v. Burrito Y Mas, Corp
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT D ELO EC CU TM RE ON NT IC ALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED: 4/7/202 1 ERIC ROGERS, Plaintiff, 1:19-cv-10333 (MKV) -against- ORDEROF BURRITO Y MAS, CORP., and 1571 DISMISSAL LEXINGTON LLC, Defendants. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: The Complaint in this action was filed on November 6, 2019 [ECF No. 1]. Defendants were served, but never responded to Plaintiff’s complaint. See ECF No. 6-7. After significant delay, Plaintiff sought a default judgment [ECF No. 16], but the Court denied the motion without prejudice to refiling due to noncompliance with the Court’s Individual Practices. See Order, ECF No. 21. Plaintiff’s second default motion was denied for similar reasons. See Order, ECF No. 26. However, since the second motion was denied on December 2, 2020, Plaintiff has taken no action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the above-captioned action is discontinued for failure to prosecute without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to this Court’s calendar if the application to restore the action is made by May 7, 2021. Any application to reopen this case must also explain why Plaintiff delayed in refiling his motion for default judgment, and must include a proposed schedule on which Plaintiff will file any such motion. If no such application is made by that date, today’s dismissal of the action is with prejudice. See LeSane vy. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc.,
239 F.3d 206, 209(2d Cir. 2001) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 630(1962)). SO ORDERED. | i / ln Date: April 6, 2021 rb irbcodit New York, NY United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown