Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 2, 2019

Brannon v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:17-cv-06024
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureSummary Judgment
In one sentence

In Brannon v. Delta Airlines, Judge Abrams ordered Brannon to respond to the Port Authority’s summary-judgment motion or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Who this affects

Ralph Brannon and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; the order also concerned the handling of the Port Authority’s pending motion.

What happened

Brannon v. Delta Airlines, Inc. concerns the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s motion for summary judgment. The court had not received Ralph Brannon’s response to that motion, although it had received his opposition to the Delta defendants’ motion.

The court ordered Brannon to respond to the Port Authority’s motion by December 23, 2019, or send a letter saying he did not intend to respond but still wanted to pursue the case against the Port Authority.

Judge Ronnie Abrams warned that if Brannon did neither, the court may dismiss the case against the Port Authority for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the Port Authority’s summary-judgment motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Brannon v. Delta Airlines, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-06024
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Dec. 2, 2019

Background

On August 9, 2019, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a motion for summary judgment. The court had not received a response from Ralph Brannon. The court noted that it had received Brannon’s opposition to the Delta defendants’ separate summary-judgment motion.

Order

The court directed Brannon, no later than December 23, 2019, to do one of two things: file a response to the Port Authority’s motion, or send a letter stating that he did not intend to file a response but still wanted to pursue the action against the Port Authority.

The court stated that if Brannon said he intended to continue against the Port Authority but chose not to oppose its motion, the court would treat the motion as fully briefed and take it under consideration. The court also stated that if Brannon did not respond to the order in either way, it may dismiss the action against the Port Authority for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The clerk was directed to mail Brannon a copy of the order.

What the Court Decided

The court did not grant or deny the Port Authority’s summary-judgment motion. It issued a deadline and warning concerning Brannon’s response and possible failure to prosecute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.