Cruz Santiago v. Thong Sook Corporation
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-05747
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cruz Santiago v. Thong Sook, Judge Torres extended the plaintiff’s deadline to report whether he would hire counsel or proceed without one.
The order directly affects plaintiff Jaime Cruz Santiago, who must file a status letter by June 23, 2022, and warns that the case will be dismissed if he does not comply. It also affects the defendants because the case may be dismissed if the plaintiff misses the deadline.
What happened
In Cruz Santiago v. Thong Sook Corporation, the plaintiff’s lawyers were allowed to withdraw after the plaintiff stopped responding to their communications. The court had ordered him to say whether he planned to hire new counsel or proceed to trial without a lawyer.
The plaintiff did not file the required status letter by the June 1 deadline, even though he had been given time to do so. The court extended the deadline one final time, until June 23, 2022.
Judge Analisa Torres warned that failing to meet the new deadline would result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. The order itself did not dismiss the case; it extended the deadline and issued the warning.
The detailed version
- Cruz Santiago v. Thong Sook Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-05747
- Analisa Torres
- June 9, 2022
Background
On April 6, 2022, the court granted the plaintiff’s lawyers permission to withdraw because of the plaintiff’s prolonged failure to respond to their communications. The court directed Jaime Cruz Santiago to file a status letter by June 1 stating whether he intended to retain new counsel or proceed to trial without a lawyer.
Court’s Action
The plaintiff did not file the status letter by the deadline. The court found that he had been given more than adequate time to locate new counsel or otherwise appear in the case. The court extended the deadline for the last time and ordered the plaintiff to file the status letter by June 23, 2022.
Warning and Effect
The court warned that failure to comply with the new deadline would result in dismissal of the matter for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. The order did not dismiss the case. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to the plaintiff’s last-known address.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.