Acosta v. Abed
- James Cott
- 1:21-cv-10147
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Acosta v. Abed, Judge Nathan ordered Acosta to address Defendants’ failure to respond, warning that the case may be dismissed for delay.
Acosta was ordered to seek default-related relief or provide a status update, serve the order on Defendants, and file proof of service. Defendants were affected because the order addressed their failure to file a response.
What happened
In Acosta v. Abed, the court noted that Defendants’ response to the complaint was due by January 18, 2022, but had not been filed.
The court ordered Acosta, within two weeks, either to seek a certificate of default and request a default judgment or to explain why that request should not yet be filed. Acosta also had to serve the order on Defendants and file proof of service by March 1, 2022. The court warned that failing to comply could lead to dismissal of the claim for failure to prosecute.
Judge Alison J. Nathan issued the order. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Acosta v. Abed · No. 1:21-cv-10147
- James Cott
- Feb. 24, 2022
Background
The court stated that proof of service filed on December 28, 2021, showed Defendants’ answer or other response to the complaint was due by January 18, 2022. As of the order, the court had not received Defendants’ answer.
Order
The court directed Plaintiff, within two weeks, to do one of two things: seek a certificate of default and move for default judgment under the court’s individual practices, or file a status update explaining why a default-judgment motion should not be filed at that time.
The court also required Plaintiff to serve the order on Defendants by March 1, 2022, and file proof of service on the electronic docket. It warned that failure to meet the deadline could result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Effect of the Order
This was a procedural order about the parties’ filings and the next steps in the case. It did not decide whether Plaintiff’s claims were legally valid or whether Defendants were liable. The order did not itself enter default judgment or dismiss the claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.