Chowdhury v. Berkshire Heavy Haulers Inc.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:20-cv-01932
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chowdhury v. Berkshire Heavy Haulers, Judge Oetken ordered plaintiff to appear by December 18, 2020, or face dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The order affected plaintiff Mohammed A. Chowdhury, who was required to appear by December 18, 2020, and defendants, whose counsel was ordered to serve the order on plaintiff’s counsel by December 11, 2020.
What happened
In Chowdhury v. Berkshire Heavy Haulers Inc., the case had been moved from state court to federal court, but no appearance for plaintiff Mohammed A. Chowdhury was filed after the court’s deadlines.
The court found that plaintiff had received notice and that defendants had served the court’s orders, including after plaintiff’s counsel consented to electronic service. The court warned that it would dismiss the case for failure to prosecute if plaintiff did not appear by December 18, 2020.
Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered defendants’ counsel to serve the order on plaintiff’s counsel by December 11, 2020. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Chowdhury v. Berkshire Heavy Haulers Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-01932
- Sarah Netburn
- Dec. 8, 2020
Background
The action was filed in New York state court on October 3, 2019, and removed to the Southern District of New York on March 4, 2020. On July 30, 2020, the court ordered plaintiff to appear by August 14, 2020, and directed defendants to serve plaintiff with that order.
Defendants initially emailed the order to plaintiff but did not indicate that plaintiff had consented to electronic service. Plaintiff did not appear by the August 14 deadline. On August 25, 2020, the court directed defendants to serve plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b). On October 7, 2020, defendants filed email correspondence showing that plaintiff’s counsel had consented to electronic service in the Southern District and acknowledged receiving defendants’ earlier emails. Plaintiff still did not appear.
Court’s Action
The court stated that nearly four months had passed since the August 14 deadline and more than nine months since plaintiff received notice that the case had been removed. It cited the Second Circuit’s recognition that involuntary dismissal can prevent undue delay and docket congestion.
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it warned that the case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute if plaintiff failed to appear by December 18, 2020. The court also ordered defendants’ counsel to serve a copy of the order on plaintiff’s counsel by December 11, 2020.
Judge
J. Paul Oetken issued the order on December 8, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.