Rose v. The State of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-03164
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rose v. City of New York, Judge Wang ordered Rose to oppose defendants’ dismissal motion by June 17, 2022.
Darrell Rose and the defendants in the action, including The City of New York.
What happened
In Rose v. The City of New York, Darrell Rose had been ordered to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court had previously extended his deadline to March 18, 2022, but he had not filed a response or requested another extension.
The court ordered Rose to respond by June 17, 2022. It warned that failing to do so could lead the court to treat the motion as unopposed and could result in dismissal of the action or dismissal for failure to prosecute. The defendants also had to send Rose the order and their motion papers by a trackable method and file proof that they had done so.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued the order on May 5, 2022. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss; it set a deadline and warned of possible consequences for failing to respond.
The detailed version
- Rose v. The State of New York · No. 1:21-cv-03164
- Analisa Torres
- May 5, 2022
Background
After an initial case-management conference on December 2, 2021, Darrell Rose was directed to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss by January 14, 2022. Rose requested more time, and the court extended the deadline to March 18, 2022. The order states that Rose had not filed an opposition or requested another extension as of the date of the order.
Order
The court ordered Rose to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss by June 17, 2022. It warned that failure to file an opposition would cause the court to consider the motion unopposed and might result in dismissal of the action. The court also warned that failure to respond to court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to diligently pursue the lawsuit.
The defendants were directed to serve Rose with a copy of the order and their motion-to-dismiss papers by a trackable method, and to file proof of service on the docket.
Disposition and significance
The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not otherwise resolve the claims. It established a response deadline and described possible future consequences if Rose did not respond. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.