Weber v. GIMH Holdings, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-07559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Weber v. GIMH Holdings, Judge Abrams ordered Weber to respond by January 23, 2020, to defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Andrew T. Weber and the defendants who filed the motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Weber v. GIMH Holdings, LLC, the defendants filed a motion asking the court to dismiss Andrew T. Weber’s complaint. The court had not received Weber’s response, which was due January 2, 2020.
The court ordered Weber to file either a response to the motion or a letter stating that he did not intend to respond by January 23, 2020. If Weber said he would continue the case but chose not to oppose the motion, the court would consider the motion ready for decision.
Judge Ronnie Abrams warned that if Weber did not respond to the order, the court may dismiss the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Weber v. GIMH Holdings, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-07559
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 9, 2020
Background
On December 19, 2019, GIMH Holdings, LLC and the other named defendants filed a motion to dismiss Andrew T. Weber’s complaint. Under Local Civil Rule 6.1, Weber’s response was due January 2, 2020. The court stated that it had not received a response.
Order
The court directed Weber to file, no later than January 23, 2020, either a response to the motion to dismiss or a letter stating that he did not intend to file a response. The court explained that if Weber stated that he intended to pursue the action but chose not to oppose the motion, the court would treat the motion as fully presented and decide it based on the complaint and applicable law.
Possible consequence
The court further stated that if Weber did not respond to the order—either by responding to the motion or submitting the required letter—the court may dismiss the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.