Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 6, 2022

Gopu v. Luckin Coffee Inc.

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:21-cv-00484
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gopu v. Luckin Coffee Inc., Judge Cronan ordered plaintiffs to respond and show cause before possible dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, who were required to respond by September 15, 2022, or risk dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute.

What happened

In Gopu v. Luckin Coffee Inc., the plaintiffs did not file a status-update letter after the court ordered them to do so twice.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to tell the court by September 15, 2022, whether they intended to continue the case and, if so, explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute it.

Judge John P. Cronan warned that the court may dismiss the action without further notice if the plaintiffs failed to respond by the deadline. The order did not dismiss the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gopu v. Luckin Coffee Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00484
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Sept. 6, 2022

Background

On August 12, 2022, the Court ordered the plaintiffs to file a status-update letter by August 18. After they did not file the letter, the Court ordered them on August 22 to file it by August 26. The opinion states that the plaintiffs still had not filed the letter as of September 6.

Court’s Order

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with a court order. The Court ordered the plaintiffs to inform it by September 15, 2022, whether they intended to proceed with the case. If they intended to proceed, they also had to show cause—give an explanation—why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

The Court stated that it might dismiss the action without further notice if the plaintiffs failed to communicate their intent to proceed and explain why dismissal was unwarranted by the deadline. The order did not itself dismiss the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.