McDonald v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-03889
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McDonald v. City of New York, Judge Aaron extended NYCHA’s response deadline and warned that missing a conference could lead to a dismissal recommendation.
The plaintiff, Anthony McDonald, was warned about the consequences of missing the next conference; Defendant NYCHA received additional time to respond; and the parties were directed to attend the March 5, 2021 telephone conference.
What happened
In McDonald v. City of New York, only the defendants appeared at a telephone conference. The court extended Defendant NYCHA’s deadline to respond to the complaint until January 22, 2021, and scheduled another telephone conference for March 5, 2021.
The plaintiff did not appear at the January 5 conference. The court noted that he was apparently receiving its orders and had a duty to keep the court and defendants informed of any address change and to pursue his case. The City’s lawyer also described unsuccessful efforts to contact him.
Judge Aaron warned that if the plaintiff does not attend the March 5 conference, he will recommend that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to the plaintiff, who is representing himself.
The detailed version
- McDonald v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-03889
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 5, 2021
Background
After a telephone conference in which only the defendants appeared, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued an order concerning the case. The plaintiff did not appear for the conference. The order states that the plaintiff apparently received the court’s orders by mail, that no court mail appeared to have been returned, and that counsel for the City of New York had tried to contact him by telephone and email without receiving a response.
Order
The court extended Defendant NYCHA’s deadline to respond to the complaint until January 22, 2021. It also directed the parties to attend a telephone conference on March 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., and provided the telephone numbers and access code for the conference.
The court reminded the plaintiff that he must comply with court orders, diligently pursue the case, and notify the court and defendants of any address change. The order states that failing to do so can support dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Warning and disposition
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, Judge Stewart D. Aaron stated that if the plaintiff fails to appear at the March 5 conference, he will recommend to District Judge Swain that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to the plaintiff.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.