Mango v. National Review, Inc.
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-08784
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mango v. National Review, Judge Nathan ordered Gregory Mango to pursue default judgment or explain the delay, warning his claim may be dismissed.
Gregory Mango was required to take the specified procedural steps, and National Review, Inc. had to be served with the order. The court warned that Mango’s claim could be dismissed with prejudice if he failed to comply.
What happened
In Mango v. National Review, Inc., Gregory Mango reported that National Review, Inc. had not answered or otherwise responded to his complaint by the stated deadline.
The court ordered Mango, within two weeks, either to seek a certificate of default and move for default judgment or to explain why he should not do so. He also had to serve the order on National Review, Inc. and file proof of service within two business days.
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that failing to meet these requirements could result in dismissal of Mango’s claim with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide whether Mango was entitled to relief on his claim.
The detailed version
- Mango v. National Review, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-08784
- Alison Nathan
- Jan. 16, 2020
Background
According to Gregory Mango’s affidavit of service, National Review, Inc.’s answer or other response to the complaint was due on or before October 15, 2019. The court stated that it had not received the defendant’s answer as of the date of the order.
Court’s directions
The court directed Mango, within two weeks of the order, to do one of two things: seek a certificate of default and move for default judgment under the court’s individual practices, or file a status update explaining why a default-judgment motion should not be filed at that time.
Mango also had to serve the order on National Review, Inc. and file an affidavit of service on the electronic docket within two business days.
Warning and effect
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that failing to comply by the deadline could result in dismissal of Mango’s claim with prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning dismissal based on failure to move the case forward. The order did not grant default judgment, enter a default, dismiss the claim, or decide the merits of Mango’s underlying claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.