Cunningham v. On Deck Capital, Inc.
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-10621
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cunningham v. On Deck Capital, Inc., Judge Nathan ordered Cunningham to respond to the dismissal motion and warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
Craig Cunningham was required to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss or state that he would not oppose it.
What happened
In Cunningham v. On Deck Capital, Inc., Craig Cunningham filed an amended complaint, and the defendants asked the court to dismiss it. The court had not received Cunningham’s response to that request.
The court ordered Cunningham to submit his response by July 19, 2021, or tell the court that he would not respond. If he responded, the defendants could reply by July 26, 2021; otherwise, the dismissal request would be treated as unopposed.
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that failing to follow the order could result in dismissal for failing to pursue the case. The order did not decide the defendants’ dismissal request.
The detailed version
- Cunningham v. On Deck Capital, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-10621
- Alison Nathan
- June 28, 2021
Background
Craig Cunningham filed an amended complaint on May 17, 2021. On May 28, 2021, On Deck Capital, Inc., and the other defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court stated that it had not received Cunningham’s opposition to that motion as of the date of the order.
Order
The court ordered Cunningham to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss by July 19, 2021, or file a letter stating that he would not oppose the motion. If Cunningham filed an opposition, the defendants’ reply, if any, was due July 26, 2021. If he chose not to file an opposition, the motion would be treated as unopposed.
Warning and effect
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that Cunningham’s failure to comply with the order could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward, or failure to follow a court order. The court did not rule on the motion to dismiss or decide the merits of the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.