Gonzalez v. H.K. Second Ave Restaurant Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-04271
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Judge Vyskocil dismissed Gonzalez v. H.K. Second Ave Restaurant Inc. for failure to prosecute, allowing restoration by November 25, 2020.
Luis A. Gonzalez and Julio Sanchez Espinoza’s action was discontinued for failure to prosecute; the defendants were not required to respond further unless the action was restored.
What happened
In Gonzalez v. H.K. Second Ave Restaurant Inc., the plaintiffs sued the restaurant and two individual defendants. The opinion does not describe the claims.
The defendants’ responses were due August 12, 2020, but none were filed. The court also said the plaintiffs had not prosecuted the case since filing the complaint.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the action discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs and without prejudice to restoring it by November 25, 2020. If no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. H.K. Second Ave Restaurant Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04271
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 26, 2020
Background
Luis A. Gonzalez and Julio Sanchez Espinoza sued H.K. Second Ave Restaurant Inc., doing business as Bait & Hook, and Shaheen Khan and Maha Khondoker. The complaint was filed on June 4, 2020. The docket showed service on the defendants on July 21 and July 22, 2020. The opinion does not describe the claims.
Court’s action
The defendants’ responses to the complaint were due August 12, 2020. No responses were filed, and the court stated that the plaintiffs had not prosecuted the case. The court therefore ordered the action 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 was made by November 25, 2020. The order stated that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Result
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the order of dismissal on October 26, 2020. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.