Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 13, 2022

Cruz v. Indestructible Shoes LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:21-cv-09937
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Cruz v. Indestructible Shoes, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, allowing restoration by June 13, 2022, or making dismissal with prejudice.

Who this affects

Shael Cruz, the putative similarly situated plaintiffs, and Indestructible Shoes LLC. The action was discontinued for failure to prosecute, subject to the stated restoration deadline.

What happened

Shael Cruz filed this action against Indestructible Shoes LLC and identified himself as acting for others similarly situated. The defendant did not answer or otherwise appear, and Cruz did not ask the court to enter a default judgment.

The court had ordered Cruz to file a motion for default judgment by May 12, 2022, warning that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Cruz did not file that motion or take any other action to move the case forward.

In Cruz v. Indestructible Shoes LLC, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the action discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if Cruz applied by June 13, 2022. If no restoration application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cruz v. Indestructible Shoes LLC · No. 1:21-cv-09937
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
May 13, 2022

Background

Shael Cruz filed the complaint on November 24, 2021, against Indestructible Shoes LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. An affidavit stating that the summons and complaint had been served was filed on February 16, 2022. The summons stated that the defendant’s response was due February 11, 2022.

The defendant had not answered or otherwise appeared. Cruz had also not filed a motion seeking a default judgment. On April 12, 2022, the court directed Cruz to file any motion for entry of a default judgment by May 12, 2022, and warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Ruling

Cruz did not file a motion for default judgment or take any other action to prosecute the case. The court therefore ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if an application to restore it was made by June 13, 2022. The order stated that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Effect

The order ended the action as of May 13, 2022, while providing a deadline to seek restoration. The opinion does not address the merits of Cruz’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.