Cohen v. Action Squared
- 1:23-cv-10359
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Cohen v. Action Squared: the court dismissed the case without prejudice after no substitution motion followed notice of Josh Cohen’s death.
Josh Cohen’s action and the named defendants; the case was dismissed without prejudice after no substitution motion was filed within 90 days.
What happened
In Cohen v. Action Squared, the court received a filing noting that plaintiff Josh Cohen had died. The filing was served through the court’s electronic system and entered on February 20, 2025.
Ninety days passed without a motion asking to substitute a successor for Cohen. A defendant asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, which would have barred refiling.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 25(a)(1), and the court closed the case. The opinion does not identify the judge by name.
The detailed version
- Cohen v. Action Squared · No. 1:23-cv-10359
- May 27, 2025
Background
The caption lists Josh Cohen as the plaintiff and Judgment Network, AFL-CIO; Action Squared; Nathan Woodhull; Civitech; Democratic National Committee; MoveOn.org; and Netroots Nation as defendants. The judgment refers to a statement noting Cohen’s death that was served through the court’s electronic filing system and filed on February 20, 2025.
Rule and Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) addresses substitution after a party’s death. The judgment states that 90 days elapsed after the death statement was filed without any motion for substitution. It also states that a defendant moved to dismiss the case with prejudice. The court cited Second Circuit precedent stating that the person filing a death notice need not identify the deceased party’s successor or legal representative. The judgment further states that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate in these circumstances.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 25(a)(1) and entered judgment accordingly. The case was closed. The judgment was dated May 27, 2025, and the opinion does not name the judge.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.