Accuprobe, Inc. v. Earth Search Sciences, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:18-cv-11871
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Accuprobe v. Earth Search Sciences, Judge Vyskocil dismissed Accuprobe’s claims after the corporation lacked counsel and did not respond.
Accuprobe, Inc.’s claims were dismissed. The opinion does not state that the ruling dismissed Jan Arnett’s claims or the claims against the other defendants.
What happened
Accuprobe, Inc. v. Earth Search Sciences, Inc. involved Accuprobe, Inc. and Jan Arnett as plaintiffs against Earth Search Sciences, Inc., General Synfuels International, Inc., and Larry Vance.
The court had allowed the plaintiffs’ lawyers to withdraw and told Jan Arnett that he needed to obtain new counsel or proceed without a lawyer. The court also explained that Accuprobe, Inc., as a corporation, could not represent itself. Arnett was ordered to explain why Accuprobe should not be dismissed, but the court received no response.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed Accuprobe, Inc.’s claims. The order does not state that the claims of the other plaintiffs were dismissed.
The detailed version
- Accuprobe, Inc. v. Earth Search Sciences, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-11871
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 2, 2020
Background
On September 2, 2020, the court granted the motion of counsel for the plaintiffs to withdraw from the case. The court instructed Jan Arnett to obtain new counsel or proceed without a lawyer. It also stated that the corporate plaintiff, Accuprobe, Inc., could not represent itself without a lawyer.
The court ordered Arnett to explain by September 14, 2020, why Accuprobe should not be dismissed. The opinion states that the court had not received anything from Arnett by October 2, 2020.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that Accuprobe, Inc.’s claims be dismissed. The opinion does not specify a separate disposition for Jan Arnett’s claims or the claims against the other defendants.
Effect
The ruling removed Accuprobe, Inc.’s claims from the action. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and it does not explain any further proceedings involving the remaining parties or claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.