Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 20, 2021

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Lizardo

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:20-cv-06593
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Joe Hand Promotions v. Lizardo, Judge Vyskocil dismissed the case for failure to prosecute, subject to a deadline for restoration.

Who this affects

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., Julio Lizardo, and J&H Restaurant Associates, Inc.

What happened

In Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Lizardo, Joe Hand Promotions sued Julio Lizardo and J&H Restaurant Associates, Inc. The complaint was filed on August 18, 2020, and the defendants’ responses were due October 27, 2020.

No responses were filed, and the plaintiff had not pursued the case after filing it. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the action discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made by February 19, 2021. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Lizardo · No. 1:20-cv-06593
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Jan. 20, 2021

Background

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. filed the complaint on August 18, 2020. An executed summons was filed on October 12, 2020, and the summonses stated that Julio Lizardo and J&H Restaurant Associates, Inc. had to respond by October 27, 2020. No responses were filed, and Joe Hand Promotions had not prosecuted the case by the date of the order.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute. The discontinuance was without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if an application to restore it was made by February 19, 2021. The order stated that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Effect

The order disposed of the case based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute; it did not decide the underlying claims. The order did not state what those claims were.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.