Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 28, 2020

Uhalde v. Roadway Moving & Storage, Inc.

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:18-cv-09962
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Uhalde v. Roadway Moving, Judge Nathan indefinitely postponed the response deadline after Uhalde’s lawyer withdrew.

Who this affects

Marcio Uhalde, whose counsel had withdrawn, must arrange for new counsel to appear or notify the court that he will proceed without a lawyer within 30 days.

What happened

In Uhalde v. Roadway Moving & Storage, Inc., the court addressed the withdrawal of Marcio Uhalde’s lawyer, Benjamin Davis Weisenberg. The court had approved the withdrawal on January 24, 2020.

Because of the withdrawal, the court postponed indefinitely Uhalde’s January 31 deadline to respond to the defendant’s December 6, 2019 letter. Uhalde was given 30 days to have new counsel appear or to notify the court that he would proceed without a lawyer.

Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that failing to comply, or to file a letter explaining a good reason for delay, might lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Uhalde v. Roadway Moving & Storage, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-09962
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
Jan. 28, 2020

Background On January 24, 2020, the court approved the withdrawal of Plaintiff Marcio Uhalde’s counsel, Benjamin Davis Weisenberg.

Order Because counsel withdrew, the court indefinitely postponed Uhalde’s January 31, 2020 deadline to respond to Defendant Roadway Moving & Storage, Inc.’s December 6, 2019 letter.

The court ordered that new counsel appear for Uhalde, or that Uhalde notify the court that he would proceed without a lawyer, within 30 days of the order. The court stated that failure to comply within 30 days—or to file a letter giving a good reason for delay—might result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward or comply with a court order. The court also stated that it would mail the order to Uhalde and note the mailing on the public docket.

Disposition The order changed a response deadline and set a deadline for Uhalde’s representation or appearance without a lawyer. It did not dismiss the action or decide the merits of the dispute. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued the order.

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.