El Bey v. Cubesmart Self Storage
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-00521
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In El Bey v. CubeSmart Self Storage, Judge Woods rescheduled a telephone conference and warned that continued noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
The order directly affected Ms. El-Bey, who was warned that continued failure to follow court orders could result in dismissal, and the defendants, who were directed to participate in the rescheduled status conference.
What happened
In El Bey v. CubeSmart Self Storage, the court held a scheduled telephone status conference on February 22, 2022. Defense counsel and the court reporter appeared, but Ms. El Bey did not, so the court ended the conference at about 3:10 p.m.
The court scheduled another telephone status conference for March 1, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. It directed the parties to follow the court’s emergency rules and provided the conference telephone number and access code. The court also directed defense counsel and the Clerk of Court to send Ms. El Bey copies of the order.
The order did not dismiss the case. Judge Gregory H. Woods warned Ms. El Bey that continued failure to follow court orders could lead the court to dismiss the case under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order.
The detailed version
- El Bey v. Cubesmart Self Storage · No. 1:20-cv-00521
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 22, 2022
What happened
The court had scheduled a remote status conference for February 22, 2022. The court, defense counsel, and the court reporter appeared by telephone, but Ms. El-Bey did not. The court adjourned the conference at approximately 3:10 p.m.
Next conference and notice
The court scheduled a new telephone status conference for March 1, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. The parties were directed to follow the court’s emergency rules and use the telephone number and access code stated in the order. Defense counsel was directed to serve the order on Ms. El-Bey by email, and the Clerk of Court was directed to mail it to her New York and Florida addresses.
Warning about dismissal
The court reminded Ms. El-Bey that she must comply with court orders. It warned that, if she continued to fail to comply, the court expected to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). That rule allows dismissal for failure to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or a court order, including dismissal by the court without a defendant first requesting it. The order itself did not dismiss the case or decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.