Martinez v. Stop 1 Deli & 99 Cent Plus Corp.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-02662
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Martinez v. Stop 1 Deli, Judge Fox ordered Martinez to explain why claims against individual defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
The order directly affected Raul Martinez and the individual defendants, Mohammed Alsaidi and Efrain Alsaidi. It required Martinez to explain why his claims against the individual defendants should not be dismissed with prejudice. The corporate defendant had already been subject to a default judgment.
What happened
In Martinez v. Stop 1 Deli & 99 Cent Plus Corp., the court addressed claims remaining against two individual defendants after a default judgment had been entered against the corporation.
The plaintiff’s attorney told the court that the plaintiff would dismiss the case against the individual defendants, but the plaintiff had taken no action as of December 18, 2020. The court had also referred the matter for an assessment of damages, interest, fees, and costs after the corporate defendant’s default judgment.
Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox ordered the plaintiff to explain in writing by December 28, 2020, why the claims against the individual defendants should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss those claims.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. Stop 1 Deli & 99 Cent Plus Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-02662
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 18, 2020
Background
On December 13, 2019, the assigned district judge entered default judgment against Stop 1 Deli & 99 Cent Plus Corp., doing business as Stop One Deli & 99 Cents. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox for an inquest—an assessment by the court—concerning damages, interest, fees, and costs after the default judgment.
At a February 5, 2020 conference, the court asked the plaintiff what action he intended to take against individual defendants Mohammed Alsaidi and Efrain Alsaidi, because the amended complaint claimed joint and several liability. The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff would dismiss the case against the individual defendants. As of the date of the order, however, the plaintiff had taken no action against them.
Order
Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing by December 28, 2020, why the claims against the individual defendants should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order was an order to show cause; it did not itself dismiss the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.