Girotto v. HIMI NY Corporation
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-10539
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Girotto v. HIMINY Corp., Judge Nathan ordered Girotto to pursue default judgment or explain why he should not, warning of possible dismissal.
Girotto and HIMINY Corp. et al.; the order requires Girotto to take specified procedural steps and warns that his claim could be dismissed with prejudice if he does not comply.
What happened
In Girotto v. HIMINY Corp. et al., the court addressed the defendant’s failure to file an answer or other response to the complaint. The court had not received the required response.
The proof of service stated that the defendant’s response was due by December 14, 2021. The court directed Girotto, within two weeks, either to seek a certificate of default and ask for a judgment because the defendant had not responded, or to explain why he should not do so.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also required Girotto to serve the order on the defendant and file proof of service by March 4, 2022. The order warned that failing to take the required action could result in dismissal of Girotto’s claim with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Girotto v. HIMI NY Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-10539
- Alison Nathan
- Feb. 25, 2022
Background
According to proof of service filed on December 25, 2021, the defendant’s answer or other response to the complaint was due on or before December 14, 2021. The court stated that it had not received the defendant’s answer as of the date of the order.
Order
The court directed Girotto, 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 in Civil Cases, or file a status update explaining why a motion for default judgment should not be filed at that time.
The court also required Girotto to serve the order on the defendant by March 4, 2022, and file proof of service electronically. The court warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal of Girotto’s claim with prejudice for failure to prosecute. This order did not decide the underlying merits of the claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.