Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 8, 2020

Perez v. Gee Vee Trucking, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:20-cv-00691
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Perez v. Gee Vee Trucking, Inc.: Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case for failure to prosecute, allowing restoration by October 9, 2020.

Who this affects

Edwin H. Perez’s action against Gee Vee Trucking, Inc. and Johan A. Bonilla-Gomez was discontinued for failure to prosecute, subject to the stated deadline for seeking restoration.

What happened

In Perez v. Gee Vee Trucking, Inc., Edwin H. Perez sued Gee Vee Trucking, Inc. and Johan A. Bonilla-Gomez. The complaint was filed on January 24, 2020, and the docket showed service on April 28, 2020.

The court noted that no response to the complaint had been filed and that Perez had not otherwise prosecuted the case. It therefore discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if an application was made by October 9, 2020.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Perez v. Gee Vee Trucking, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00691
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Sept. 8, 2020

Background

Edwin H. Perez filed the complaint on January 24, 2020, against Gee Vee Trucking, Inc. and Johan A. Bonilla-Gomez. An affidavit filed on the docket stated that service occurred on April 28, 2020. The opinion states that no response to the complaint had been filed and that Perez had not otherwise prosecuted the case.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute. The order imposed no costs on any party and allowed the action to be restored to the court’s calendar without prejudice if Perez made an application to restore it by October 9, 2020.

Effect of the Deadline

The order states that if no application to restore the action was made by October 9, 2020, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or decide their merits.

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.