Alliance Laundry Systems LLC v. Hiltsley
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-08725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Alliance Laundry Systems v. Marc Hiltsey, Judge Roman dismissed the action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to prosecute or respond to the court’s order.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC, whose action was dismissed without prejudice; the defendants, whose case was terminated without a decision on the underlying claims.
What happened
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC sued Marc Hiltsey, Michelle T. Hiltsley, and Leonard Keef. The court said it had not heard from the plaintiff or a defendant for more than two years, and the case had stopped moving forward.
On May 22, 2025, the court ordered Alliance Laundry Systems to explain by June 12 why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute it. Alliance Laundry Systems did not respond by the deadline.
On June 25, 2025, Judge Nelson S. Roman dismissed the action without prejudice for want of prosecution and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Alliance Laundry Systems LLC v. Hiltsley · No. 7:22-cv-08725
- Nelson Roman
- June 25, 2025
Background
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC was the plaintiff. The defendants were Marc Hiltsey, Michelle T. Hiltsley, and Leonard Keef. The court stated that it had not heard from the plaintiff or a defendant for more than two years and that the plaintiff’s inactivity had interfered with the court’s ability to manage and resolve cases efficiently.
Order to Show Cause
On May 22, 2025, the court issued an order requiring Alliance Laundry Systems to explain in writing by June 12, 2025, why the complaint should not be dismissed for want of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The deadline passed, and the plaintiff did not respond.
Ruling
The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the action without prejudice for want of prosecution. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar refiling, although the opinion does not address whether any other legal limitation would apply. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the action.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.