Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 7, 2021

Gonzalez v. H.K. Second Ave Restaurant Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:20-cv-04271
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gonzalez v. H.K. Second Ave Restaurant, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, subject to restoration by May 7, 2021.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs’ action was discontinued because they did not prosecute it. The defendants were not required to pay costs, and the plaintiffs could seek restoration by May 7, 2021, subject to the conditions stated in the order.

What happened

In Gonzalez v. H.K. Second Ave Restaurant Inc., the defendants were served but did not respond to the complaint. The court previously dismissed the action after the plaintiffs took no steps to move it forward, then reopened it at the plaintiffs’ request and issued certificates recording the defendants’ defaults.

After the case was reopened, the plaintiffs still took no action, including filing a motion for default judgment. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if the plaintiffs applied by May 7, 2021. If they did not apply 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
Gonzalez v. H.K. Second Ave Restaurant Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04271
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Apr. 7, 2021

Background

The plaintiffs filed the complaint on June 4, 2020. The defendants were served but did not respond. After the plaintiffs took no action to prosecute the case, the court dismissed the action on October 26, 2020, without prejudice to reopening it.

The plaintiffs later moved to reopen the case. The court granted that motion, and the Clerk of Court issued certificates of default for all defendants on November 30, 2020. A certificate of default records that a defendant failed to respond, but it does not itself grant judgment to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs then took no further action to prosecute the case, including filing a motion for default judgment. The opinion does not state what claims were asserted in the complaint.

Ruling

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the plaintiffs applied to restore it by May 7, 2021. Any application had to explain the plaintiffs’ delay of more than four months in filing a motion for default judgment and include a proposed schedule for filing that motion. The order further stated that if no application was made by May 7, 2021, the dismissal would be with prejudice. Because the order resolved the case for failure to prosecute without addressing the underlying claims, this is a procedural order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.