Taveras v. P.J. Clarke's At Lincoln Center, LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-09693
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Taveras v. P.J. Clarke’s, Judge Vyskocil dismissed the action for failure to prosecute, allowing restoration by April 30, 2021.
Daniel Taveras’s case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The named defendants were affected by the discontinuation, but the order imposed no costs on any party and allowed Taveras to seek restoration by April 30, 2021.
What happened
Daniel Taveras sued P.J. Clarke’s at Lincoln Center, LLC, Philip Scotti, Odala Doe, and Pepe Doe. The complaint was filed on November 18, 2020, and summonses were issued the next day.
The court stated that no action had occurred in the case after the summonses were issued. The opinion does not discuss the underlying claims or their merits.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the action discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it by April 30, 2021. If no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would become with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Taveras v. P.J. Clarke's At Lincoln Center, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-09693
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 31, 2021
Background
Daniel Taveras filed the complaint on November 18, 2020, against P.J. Clarke’s at Lincoln Center, LLC, doing business as P.J. Clarke’s, Philip Scotti, Odala Doe, and Pepe Doe. The Clerk of Court issued summonses for the defendants on November 19, 2020.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that no action had occurred in the case since the summonses were issued. It therefore dismissed the action for failure to prosecute, meaning the case was not being actively pursued. The opinion did not address the merits of Taveras’s claims.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if an application to restore was made by April 30, 2021. The order stated that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.