Velasquez v. Soho Garden, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-02240
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Velasquez v. Soho Garden, Inc., Judge Oetken dismissed the action without prejudice after Velasquez failed to respond to an order or prosecute the case.
Ricardo Velasquez's action against Soho Garden, Inc. and D.K. Property Inc. was dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Velasquez v. Soho Garden, Inc., Ricardo Velasquez sued Soho Garden, Inc. and D.K. Property Inc. The defendants did not appear or respond to the complaint after being served.
The court ordered Velasquez to provide a case-status letter or seek a default judgment, warning that the case could be dismissed if he did neither by June 18, 2024. Velasquez took no action.
Judge Oetken dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The dismissal allows refiling.
The detailed version
- Velasquez v. Soho Garden, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02240
- James Oetken
- June 20, 2024
Background
Ricardo Velasquez filed this action against Soho Garden, Inc. and D.K. Property Inc. on March 25, 2024. He served the defendants on April 16, 2024. Their responses were due May 7, 2024, but neither defendant appeared or filed a response.
On May 28, 2024, the court ordered Velasquez either to file a letter about the status of the case or to seek default judgment, which is a judgment requested because a defendant has not responded. The court warned that failure to take either action by June 18, 2024, could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Velasquez took no action after that order.
Ruling
Judge Oetken dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with a court order. The court found that Velasquez had been warned about the possible dismissal and had caused unreasonable delay. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the order states that the action may be refiled.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.