Velasquez v. Kennedy Chicken & Burger Inc
- Clarke
- 1:24-cv-04463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Velasquez v. 2535 Webster 3769 LLC: Judge Clarke dismissed the case without prejudice after Velasquez failed to pursue it.
Ricardo Velasquez, 2535 Webster 3769 LLC, and Webster Chicken Corp.; the action was dismissed without prejudice and the case was closed.
What happened
In Ricardo Velasquez v. 2535 Webster 3769 LLC and Webster Chicken Corp., Velasquez first told the court that he had named the wrong party and needed time to identify and serve the correct defendant.
The court granted multiple extensions, but Velasquez missed deadlines to amend the complaint and serve the defendants. After he eventually filed and served an amended complaint, the defendants did not respond. The court ordered Velasquez to file a request for a judgment because of that failure to respond, but he did not do so.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and directed the clerk to close the case and terminate all pending motions.
The detailed version
- Velasquez v. Kennedy Chicken & Burger Inc · No. 1:24-cv-04463
- Clarke
- May 1, 2025
Background
Ricardo Velasquez filed the action on June 11, 2024. After the defendants did not appear or answer, the court directed Velasquez to file a motion for default. Velasquez responded that he had named the incorrect party and requested time to locate and serve the correct defendant.
The court granted that request and later granted another extension. Velasquez missed the deadlines to amend the complaint and serve the summons and amended complaint, so the court ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed. With the court’s permission, Velasquez filed an amended complaint on January 31, 2025, and served the defendants on February 13, 2025.
The defendants did not answer or otherwise appear by the deadline. On April 2, 2025, the court ordered Velasquez to file a motion for default judgment by April 25, 2025, warning that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Velasquez did not respond to that order or otherwise indicate that he intended to continue the action.
Court’s Ruling
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with the rules or a court order. The court dismissed this action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) because Velasquez did not respond to the April 2 order or otherwise indicate that he intended to pursue the case. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.