Tavarez v. RB Health LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-00259
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tavarez v. RB Health (US) LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, with prejudice if not restored by July 14, 2022.
The action affected Victoriano Tavarez and RB Health (US) LLC. The case was discontinued because Tavarez did not prosecute it; it could be restored if he applied by July 14, 2022, but otherwise the dismissal would be with prejudice.
What happened
In Tavarez v. RB Health (US) LLC, Victoriano Tavarez filed a complaint against RB Health (US) LLC on January 11, 2022. After the defendant did not respond by the deadline, the court gave Tavarez until June 12, 2022, to seek a default judgment.
Tavarez did not file the required motion or otherwise continue prosecuting the case. The court therefore discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar by July 14, 2022.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no application to restore the action was filed by July 14, 2022, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Tavarez v. RB Health LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00259
- Vyskocil
- June 14, 2022
Background
Victoriano Tavarez filed this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated on January 11, 2022. The docket showed that RB Health (US) LLC was served and that its response was due March 11, 2022.
RB Health did not timely answer or otherwise respond. The Court then ordered that any motion for entry of a default judgment be filed by May 12, 2022, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At Tavarez’s request, the deadline was extended to June 12, 2022.
Ruling
The Court stated that no responses had been filed and that Tavarez had not prosecuted the case. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil 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 was made by July 14, 2022. The order further stated that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.