Sweet Baby Lightning Enterprises LLC v. Keystone Capital Corporation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-06528
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sweet Baby Lightning v. Keystone, Judge Abrams ordered the plaintiffs to respond to defendants’ dismissal motion or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Sweet Baby Lightning Enterprises LLC and John Slater, who were ordered to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss or state that they would not respond; Keystone Capital Corporation, Frank Nocito, and Malcolm Taub were the moving defendants.
What happened
In Sweet Baby Lightning Enterprises LLC v. Keystone Capital Corporation, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The plaintiffs’ response was due October 6, 2022, but they had not filed one or requested more time.
The court ordered the plaintiffs, Sweet Baby Lightning Enterprises LLC and John Slater, to respond by October 24, 2022, or send a letter saying they would not respond. If they said they intended to continue the case but would not oppose the motion, the court would consider the motion ready for decision.
Judge Ronnie Abrams warned that if the plaintiffs did not respond to the order, the court may dismiss the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Sweet Baby Lightning Enterprises LLC v. Keystone Capital Corporation · No. 1:21-cv-06528
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 19, 2022
Background
Defendants Keystone Capital Corporation, Frank Nocito, and Malcolm Taub moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed by Sweet Baby Lightning Enterprises LLC and John Slater. Under the applicable local rule, the plaintiffs’ response was due October 6, 2022. The court stated that no response had been filed and that the plaintiffs had not requested an extension.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to take one of two actions by October 24, 2022: file a response to the motion to dismiss, or file a letter stating that they did not intend to file a response. If the plaintiffs stated that they intended to pursue the action but would not oppose the motion, the court would treat the motion as fully briefed and decide it based on the existing filings and applicable law.
Warning and disposition
The court warned that if the plaintiffs did not respond to the order, either by responding to the motion or by submitting the specified letter, it may dismiss the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.