United States v. Barrett
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-06839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In United States v. Barrett, Judge Vyskocil ordered the United States to seek default judgment by March 7 or face possible dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The United States and Eversley E. Barrett, doing business as Eversley Tax; the United States was given a deadline to seek default judgment, and Barrett faced the possibility of dismissal if the case was not prosecuted.
What happened
In United States v. Barrett, the United States sued Eversley E. Barrett, doing business as Eversley Tax. Barrett’s response was due January 4, 2022, after the summons and complaint were served, but no response was filed.
The court ordered the United States to file any request for a default judgment by March 7, 2022, and to follow the court’s procedures for such requests. The court warned that failing to meet the deadline may lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued this order on February 7, 2022. The order did not enter a default judgment or decide the claims’ merits.
The detailed version
- United States v. Barrett · No. 1:21-cv-06839
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 7, 2022
Background
The United States filed the complaint on August 13, 2021, against Eversley E. Barrett, doing business as Eversley Tax. The docket included an affidavit stating that the summons and complaint had been served. According to the summons, Barrett’s response was due January 4, 2022. No response was filed, and the United States had not taken further steps to prosecute the case as of the order’s date.
Order
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that any motion for entry of a default judgment be filed by March 7, 2022. The United States was directed to follow the procedures in the judge’s Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases. The court warned that failing to file a motion by that date may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
What the Order Did Not Decide
The court did not enter a default judgment, dismiss the action, or decide the underlying claims. The dismissal described in the order was only a possible future consequence of failing to meet the deadline.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.