Saleh v. United States of America
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-07110
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Saleh v. United States, Judge Woods rescheduled the conference and warned that continued noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
The order directly affected plaintiffs’ counsel, who failed to attend the scheduled conference, and the parties, whose conference was rescheduled. It also warned that continued noncompliance could lead to dismissal of the case.
What happened
Saleh v. United States of America concerns an initial pretrial conference that plaintiffs’ counsel did not attend. The court had ordered the parties to appear on October 24, 2022.
Because plaintiffs’ counsel failed to appear, the court adjourned the conference. It rescheduled the conference for October 31, 2022, at 3:00 p.m., by telephone.
Judge Gregory H. Woods warned that continued failure to follow court orders or participate actively in the case could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Saleh v. United States of America · No. 1:22-cv-07110
- Gregory Woods
- Oct. 26, 2022
Background
On August 23, 2022, the court ordered the parties to appear for an initial pretrial conference on October 24, 2022. On that date, the court, defense counsel, and a court reporter joined the conference, but counsel for Sadeq K. Saleh and Alex Mini Market Corp. did not appear. The court therefore adjourned the conference.
Court’s Action
The court reminded plaintiffs’ counsel that court orders must be followed. It warned that continued failure to comply with court orders or to participate actively in the litigation could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or an order. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
The court rescheduled the initial pretrial conference for October 31, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. The conference was to be conducted by telephone, and the parties were directed to follow the court’s emergency rules and the specified telephone-conference requirement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.