Mejia v. Ample Foods, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-02821
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Mejia v. Ample Foods was discontinued for failure to prosecute, Judge Vyskocil ruled, with restoration allowed by July 13, 2022.
Jose Mejia and Ample Foods, Inc.; the action brought on behalf of similarly situated people was discontinued for failure to prosecute, subject to the stated restoration deadline.
What happened
In Mejia v. Ample Foods, Inc., Jose Mejia sued Ample Foods, Inc., but the company did not timely respond to the complaint. The court gave Mejia until June 27, 2022, to seek a default judgment and warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal.
No response was filed, and Mejia did not take the required steps to move the case forward. The court therefore discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, without costs to either party.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil allowed Mejia to restore the action to the court’s calendar by July 13, 2022. If no application to restore the action was filed by then, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Mejia v. Ample Foods, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02821
- Vyskocil
- June 28, 2022
Background
Jose Mejia filed the complaint on April 5, 2022, against Ample Foods, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. An affidavit stated that Ample Foods had been served with the summons and complaint. According to the summons, the company’s response was due May 12, 2022.
Ample Foods did not timely answer or otherwise respond. The court then ordered that any motion for entry of a default judgment be filed by June 27, 2022. The court warned Mejia that failing to move for default judgment by that date could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ruling
The court found that no responses had been filed and that Mejia had not prosecuted the case. It 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 13, 2022. The order further stated that if no restoration application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Effect of the Order
The order did not decide the underlying claims. It ended the action based on the failure to move it forward, while providing a deadline to seek restoration. The opinion does not state whether Mejia filed an application to restore the action after the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.