Evelyn v. Rantab Enterprises Incorporated
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-00528
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Evelyn v. Rantab Enterprises, Judge Garnett dismissed Evelyn’s claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute and set briefing limits for Corley’s claims.
Evelyn’s claims were dismissed without prejudice, and she was terminated from the case. Corley’s claims were not decided; he was ordered to respond by October 20, 2024, only to the statute-of-limitations defense in the pending dismissal motions.
What happened
In Evelyn v. Rantab Enterprises Incorporated, the court had ordered Rochelle Evelyn to provide the City of New York with medical releases and warned that failing to comply could lead to dismissal. The City reported that it had not received Evelyn’s releases and asked the court to dismiss her claims for failure to prosecute. It also argued that the claims of Evelyn and Royce Corley were barred by the statute of limitations.
The court dismissed Evelyn’s claims without prejudice because she had not complied with the medical-release order despite warnings and extensions. The dismissal removed Evelyn from the case. The court did not decide whether Corley’s claims were timely or whether the defendants’ other arguments justified dismissal.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered Corley to file one response to the pending dismissal motions by October 20, 2024, limited strictly to the statute-of-limitations defense. The court said Corley could raise other arguments later if it determined that his claims were not time-barred.
The detailed version
- Evelyn v. Rantab Enterprises Incorporated · No. 1:24-cv-00528
- James Oetken
- Aug. 28, 2024
Background
The court had previously ordered the plaintiffs to provide the City of New York with medical releases. The court warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to actively pursue the case. On August 5, 2024, the court gave Evelyn another deadline and stated that the City could ask for dismissal if she did not submit the releases.
The City reported that it had not received releases from Evelyn. It moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss all claims brought by Evelyn for failure to prosecute. The City also moved to dismiss all claims, including Corley’s, as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The order does not decide that limitations issue.
Ruling on Evelyn’s claims
The court dismissed all of Evelyn’s claims without prejudice under Rule 41(b). It found that, despite ample warnings and extensions provided by the court, it had received no indication that Evelyn intended to continue pursuing the case. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Evelyn as a plaintiff in the matter.
Ruling concerning Corley’s claims
The court ordered Corley to file a consolidated response or opposition to the dismissal motions filed by the Mount Sinai Defendants and the City by October 20, 2024. That filing was strictly limited to addressing the statute-of-limitations defense raised in both motions. The court stated that it would not consider arguments on other issues at that stage, while preserving Corley’s ability to raise those arguments later if the court determined that his claims were not time-barred.
The order superseded an earlier order that had stayed briefing on the Mount Sinai Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court did not grant or deny the pending motions to dismiss Corley’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.