Singleton v. United Teamster Pension Fund A
- Vyskocil
- 1:18-cv-08044
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Singleton v. United Teamster Pension Fund-A, Judge Vyskocil ordered Singleton and counsel to explain noncompliance before possible summary judgment, dismissal, and sanctions.
Barry Singleton and his counsel were required to respond to the order to show cause; the Fund’s pending summary-judgment motion was not decided.
What happened
In Singleton v. United Teamster Pension Fund-A, the Fund asked for summary judgment after Singleton did not respond, despite several extensions and warnings from the court.
The court did not decide the summary-judgment motion or dismiss the case. Instead, it ordered Singleton to explain by September 23, 2020, why the motion should not be granted and why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also ordered Singleton’s counsel to explain by the same date why counsel should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with court orders.
The detailed version
- Singleton v. United Teamster Pension Fund A · No. 1:18-cv-08044
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 18, 2020
Background
Barry Singleton brought the case against United Teamster Pension Fund-A. The Fund filed a motion for summary judgment on September 12, 2019. Singleton did not file a response, even after the court granted several extensions and warned that the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute—that is, for not taking required steps to move the case forward.
The opinion also recounts that Singleton previously missed a deadline to file an amended complaint, although he later filed one by the deadline set in a warning order. After the Fund filed its summary-judgment motion, Singleton again failed to respond by multiple court-ordered deadlines. He instead filed a letter asking for a discovery conference, which Magistrate Judge Fox denied. Singleton then took no further action described in the opinion.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause. It required Singleton, by September 23, 2020, to explain why the Fund’s summary-judgment motion should not be granted and why the case should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court separately required Singleton’s counsel to explain by that date why counsel should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with court orders.
This opinion does not grant or deny the Fund’s summary-judgment motion and does not dismiss the case. It directs Singleton and his counsel to provide explanations before the court decides those possible consequences.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.