Moretti v. Luxury Cars of Westchester LLC
Gene Moretti v. Luxury Cars of Westchester LLC, DARCARS Lexus of Mount Kisco, DARCARS of Kisco Avenue, Inc., DARCARS of Mt. Kisco, Inc., DARCARS Automotive Group, and Mariam Inc.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-06067
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gene Moretti v. Luxury Cars, Judge Roman ended the case after Moretti failed to file the required amended complaint, making certain dismissals final.
Gene Moretti and the defendants named in the case were affected by the termination of the action; the claims previously dismissed without prejudice were dismissed with prejudice after Moretti failed to meet the court-ordered filing deadline.
What happened
In Gene Moretti v. Luxury Cars of Westchester LLC, the court had allowed Gene Moretti to file a third amended complaint by September 22, 2025. Moretti did not file it by that deadline.
The court noted that Moretti was represented by counsel and had not communicated with the court since September 30, 2024. It also noted that he had previously received several opportunities to file a complaint.
Judge Nelson S. Roman ruled that the claims previously dismissed without prejudice were now dismissed with prejudice because Moretti missed the court-ordered deadline. The court terminated the case and directed the clerk to close it.
The detailed version
- Moretti v. Luxury Cars of Westchester LLC · No. 7:23-cv-06067
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 7, 2025
Background
On August 20, 2025, the court issued an Opinion and Order granting Gene Moretti permission to file a Third Amended Complaint by September 22, 2025. Moretti did not file that complaint by the deadline.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with a court order. The court also stated that it has authority to dismiss a case on its own for failure to prosecute.
The court noted that Moretti was represented by counsel and had not communicated with the court since filing a memorandum opposing the defendants’ motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on September 30, 2024. The court found no reason to believe that Moretti intended to file the Third Amended Complaint or accidentally missed the deadline, particularly because he had previously received several opportunities to file a complaint.
Ruling
The court ruled that the claims dismissed without prejudice in the August 20 Opinion and Order were now deemed dismissed with prejudice. The court terminated the case and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.