Ransom v. C.O. Bank
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-10232
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ransom v. C.O. Bank, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case for failure to prosecute, allowing restoration by July 28, 2022.
Christopher Ransom and the defendants, including C.O. Bank.
What happened
Christopher Ransom sued C.O. Bank and other defendants in Ransom v. C.O. Bank. The defendants moved to dismiss, and the court previously granted that motion while allowing Ransom to amend his complaint.
Ransom did not file an amended complaint by the original deadline or by the later deadline the court provided. The court also noted that he had not filed responses or otherwise continued pursuing this case.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the case be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party. The order allowed Ransom to ask to restore the case by July 28, 2022; it states that the dismissal would be with prejudice if he did not do so by that date.
The detailed version
- Ransom v. C.O. Bank · No. 1:20-cv-10232
- Vyskocil
- June 28, 2022
Background
Christopher Ransom filed the complaint on October 8, 2020, against C.O. Bank and other defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. On March 14, 2022, the court granted that motion but gave Ransom permission to amend his complaint to address the identified problems. The court set an April 14, 2022 deadline.
Ransom did not file an amendment by that deadline. After receiving a letter from Ransom stating that his address had changed, the court extended the amendment deadline to June 27, 2022. Ransom did not file an amendment by the extended deadline either. The court also stated that no responses had been filed and that Ransom had not prosecuted the case. The opinion identifies Ransom as proceeding without a lawyer.
Ruling
The court 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 Ransom applied to restore it by July 28, 2022. The order further states that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. This order addressed Ransom’s failure to pursue the case rather than deciding the underlying claims.
Effect
The case was discontinued subject to the stated restoration deadline. The order affected Ransom’s ability to continue the action and ended the defendants’ need to respond unless the case was restored under the order’s terms.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.