Amaro Food Enterprises Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-07784
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Amaro Food Enterprises v. Liberty Mutual, Judge Oetken ordered plaintiff’s counsel to appear by December 20 or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Amaro Food Enterprises Inc. and its counsel were required to file an appearance; Liberty Mutual Insurance’s counsel was required to serve the order.
What happened
Amaro Food Enterprises Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance began after Liberty Mutual removed the case from New York state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The court directed Amaro Food Enterprises’ counsel to file an appearance electronically by December 20, 2024. The order also required Liberty Mutual’s counsel to serve a copy on Amaro’s counsel by December 11.
Judge James Oetken warned that the court may dismiss the case for failure to prosecute if the plaintiff does not appear. The order did not dismiss the case or decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Amaro Food Enterprises Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · No. 1:24-cv-07784
- James Oetken
- Dec. 6, 2024
Background
The case was removed from New York Supreme Court, New York County, on October 14, 2024. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute between Amaro Food Enterprises Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance.
Order
The court directed counsel for Amaro Food Enterprises Inc. to file an appearance with the court’s electronic filing system by December 20, 2024. The court directed counsel for Liberty Mutual Insurance to serve a copy of the order on the plaintiff’s counsel by December 11, 2024.
The court warned that, if the plaintiff failed to appear, it might dismiss the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order itself did not dismiss the case and did not resolve the underlying legal dispute.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addresses the plaintiff’s required appearance and warns of a possible later dismissal; it does not decide the merits of the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.