Velasquez v. Union Deli and Grocery NY Corp. and 805 East 163rd St. Corp.
Ricardo Velasquez v. Union Deli and Grocery NY Corp. and 805 East 163rd St. Corp.
- Rearden
- 1:25-cv-01646
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Velasquez v. Union Deli, Judge Rearden dismissed the case without prejudice because Velasquez failed to prosecute.
Ricardo Velasquez’s claims against Union Deli and Grocery NY Corp. and 805 East 163rd St. Corp. were dismissed without prejudice; the opinion does not resolve the merits of those claims.
What happened
In Ricardo Velasquez v. Union Deli and Grocery NY Corp. and 805 East 163rd St. Corp., Ricardo Velasquez sued over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The defendants did not respond to the complaint or appear. After the court twice ordered Velasquez to explain why the case should not be dismissed, and later extended his deadline to seek a default judgment, Velasquez did not request a certificate of default, move for default judgment, or take other action.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s inherent power. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Velasquez v. Union Deli and Grocery NY Corp. and 805 East 163rd St. Corp. · No. 1:25-cv-01646
- Rearden
- Oct. 31, 2025
Background
Ricardo Velasquez brought claims against Union Deli and Grocery NY Corp. and 805 East 163rd St. Corp. alleging, among other things, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He filed the action on February 26, 2025, and served the summons and complaint on the defendants on April 16, 2025.
Failure to Prosecute
The defendants’ responses were due on May 7, 2025. They did not respond to the complaint or otherwise appear. On June 25, 2025, the court ordered Velasquez to show why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and warned that he could seek a default judgment. Velasquez did not respond.
The court issued a second order to show cause on August 13, 2025, again requiring Velasquez to explain why the case should not be dismissed. After Velasquez applied for an extension, the court extended his deadline to seek a default judgment to October 8, 2025. The court warned that dismissal would follow if the defendants did not respond and Velasquez did not move for a default judgment.
Ruling
The defendants did not respond by the extended deadline or afterward. Velasquez did not request a certificate of default, file a motion for default judgment, or take any other action. The court therefore dismissed the case, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s inherent power. The clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion does not decide the merits of Velasquez’s disability-discrimination or other claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.