Murphy v. Riedell Shoes, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-01362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Murphy v. Riedell Shoes, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, allowing restoration by July 22, 2022.
James Murphy and the proposed similarly situated persons he sought to represent; Riedell Shoes, Inc. was the defendant.
What happened
In Murphy v. Riedell Shoes, Inc., James Murphy brought an action for himself and others said to be similarly situated. The court required him to serve Riedell Shoes, Inc. and file proof of service.
Murphy did not file proof that he served the summons and complaint by the initial deadline or by the later deadline set by the court. He also did not show why service had not been made.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made by July 22, 2022. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Murphy v. Riedell Shoes, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01362
- Vyskocil
- June 21, 2022
Background
James Murphy filed the complaint on February 17, 2022, for himself and on behalf of other persons described as similarly situated. The opinion states that he did not file proof of service and summons by May 18, 2022, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
On May 20, 2022, the Court directed Murphy to serve Riedell Shoes, Inc. and file proof of service by June 17, 2022. The Court warned that if service was not made and Murphy did not explain in writing why it had not been made, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ruling
Murphy did not file proof of service as required by the May 20 order, and the court found that he 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 it was made by July 22, 2022. The order further states that if no 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.