Young v. Cromwell Manor Inn, L.L.C.
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-08698
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Judge Vyskocil discontinued Young v. Cromwell Manor Inn for failure to prosecute, allowing restoration by April 23, 2020.
The action brought by Lawrence Young, including his claims on behalf of the proposed similarly situated group, was discontinued subject to the restoration deadline.
What happened
Young v. Cromwell Manor Inn, L.L.C. was brought by Lawrence Young on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people. The court ordered Young to prove service on the defendant and, if the response deadline had passed, seek a default judgment.
Young filed proof that the defendant had been served on November 8, 2019, but he did not seek a default judgment or otherwise move the case forward.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, without costs and without prejudice to restoring it if Young applied by April 23, 2020. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Young v. Cromwell Manor Inn, L.L.C. · No. 1:19-cv-08698
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 24, 2020
Background
Lawrence Young filed the complaint on September 19, 2019, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated. On January 7, 2020, the Court ordered Young to file proof that Cromwell Manor Inn, L.L.C. had been served by January 14, 2020. The Court also ordered that, if the defendant’s time to respond had expired, Young had to move for default judgment by February 14, 2020 or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
What Happened
On January 14, 2020, Young filed a receipt stating that the defendant had been served on November 8, 2019. He did not move for default judgment and took no other action to prosecute the case.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay 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 an application to restore it was made by April 23, 2020. The order stated that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.