Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 6, 2020

Stein v. El Paso Electric Company

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:19-cv-06703
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Stein v. El Paso Electric Company, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, subject to a restoration deadline.

Who this affects

The plaintiff’s action against El Paso Electric Company and the other defendants was discontinued for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff had until April 7, 2020, to seek restoration; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

What happened

Stein v. El Paso Electric Company was filed on July 18, 2019. The defendants waived service, but they did not respond by the September 17, 2019 deadline, and the plaintiff took no further action.

Before the case was reassigned, Judge Broderick ordered the plaintiff to seek a default judgment or risk dismissal for failing to prosecute. The plaintiff did not act.

Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, without costs. The plaintiff could ask to restore the case by April 7, 2020; if no such application was made, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Stein v. El Paso Electric Company · No. 1:19-cv-06703
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Mar. 6, 2020

Background

The complaint was filed on July 18, 2019. The defendants filed executed waivers of service on July 24, 2019, making their responses due on September 17, 2019. No responses were filed, and the plaintiff did not prosecute the case.

On October 31, 2019, before the case was reassigned to Judge Vyskocil, Judge Broderick ordered the plaintiff to seek a default judgment or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff took no action.

Ruling

Judge Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the plaintiff applied to restore it by April 7, 2020. The order stated that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.