Rogers v. Burrito Y Mas, Corp
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-10333
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rogers v. Burrito Y Mas, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case for failure to prosecute, allowing restoration by May 7, 2021.
The order affected Eric Rogers and defendants Burrito Y Mas, Corp. and 1571 Lexington LLC by discontinuing the action for failure to prosecute, subject to possible restoration by May 7, 2021.
What happened
Rogers v. Burrito Y Mas, Corp. was brought by Eric Rogers against Burrito Y Mas, Corp. and 1571 Lexington LLC. The defendants were served but did not respond to the complaint.
Rogers sought a default judgment twice, but the court denied both requests because they did not comply with the court’s requirements. After the second denial, Rogers took no further action to move the case forward.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, without costs and without prejudice to restoring it by May 7, 2021. The order states that if no restoration request is made by that date, the dismissal will be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Rogers v. Burrito Y Mas, Corp · No. 1:19-cv-10333
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 7, 2021
Background
Eric Rogers filed the complaint on November 6, 2019, against Burrito Y Mas, Corp. and 1571 Lexington LLC. The opinion states that the defendants were served but never responded.
Prior Motions
Rogers later sought a default judgment, which is a judgment requested because a defendant has not responded. The court denied that motion without prejudice to refiling because it did not comply with the court’s Individual Practices. The court also denied Rogers’s second default-judgment motion for similar reasons.
After the second motion was denied on December 2, 2020, Rogers took no further action to prosecute the case.
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 Rogers applied by May 7, 2021. Any request to reopen had to explain the delay in refiling the default-judgment motion and include a proposed schedule for filing such a motion. The order further states that if no restoration request was made by May 7, 2021, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.