Okolo v. Cross River State Government
- Analisa Torres
- 7:19-cv-05329
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Okolo v. Cross River State Government, Judge Torres kept the case open, required revised default-judgment materials, and warned that missed deadlines could lead to dismissal.
Oranefo Okolo and Cross River State Government; the order required Okolo to resubmit default-judgment materials and warned that future missed deadlines could lead to dismissal.
What happened
In Okolo v. Cross River State Government, Plaintiff Oranefo Okolo responded to the Court’s order to show cause. The court said the action would not be dismissed at that time.
The court ordered Okolo to resubmit his materials for default judgment by August 14, 2020. His affidavit had to explain the proposed damages and the basis for each part of the amount, including each calculation; if the amount could not yet be calculated, he could provide the proposed damages and their basis without calculations.
Judge Analisa Torres warned that future failures to meet court deadlines could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court’s order did not decide whether default judgment should be entered.
The detailed version
- Okolo v. Cross River State Government · No. 7:19-cv-05329
- Analisa Torres
- July 17, 2020
Background
Oranefo Okolo, as assignee of St. Luke’s Hospital Consortium, brought this action against Cross River State Government. After the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, Okolo filed a letter in response.
Court’s Action
Based on that letter, the court stated that the action would not be dismissed at that time. The court nevertheless warned that future noncompliance with its deadlines could be grounds for dismissal on the court’s own initiative for failure to prosecute.
The court ordered Okolo to resubmit his materials for default judgment by August 14, 2020, following Attachment A to the court’s Individual Rules in Civil Cases. Okolo—not his counsel—had to submit an affidavit stating the proposed damages and the basis for each element of damages, with a step-by-step explanation of each calculation. If the precise amount could not yet be determined, the affidavit could state the proposed damages and their basis without calculations. The court said it could then grant default judgment and refer damages to a magistrate judge for an evidentiary hearing, called an inquest.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres did not dismiss the action at that time and set a deadline for revised default-judgment materials. The order did not grant or deny default judgment and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.