Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 23, 2023

Yan Luis v. Ancestral Supplements, LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-08582
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Yan Luis v. Ancestral Supplements, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, allowing restoration by February 23, 2023, before prejudice attached.

Who this affects

The order affected Kevin Yan Luis’s action against Ancestral Supplements, LLC by discontinuing it for failure to prosecute, subject to the stated deadline for seeking restoration.

What happened

Kevin Yan Luis brought Yan Luis v. Ancestral Supplements, LLC, including claims on behalf of himself and similarly situated people. The complaint was filed on October 7, 2022, and the defendant’s response was due December 19, 2022.

No timely response was filed, and the court ordered Kevin Yan Luis to explain by January 18, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed because he had not moved the case forward. He did not file the required letter.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar by February 23, 2023. The order stated that if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Yan Luis v. Ancestral Supplements, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08582
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Jan. 23, 2023

Background

Kevin Yan Luis filed the complaint on October 7, 2022, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. An affidavit stating that the summons and complaint had been served was filed on December 8, 2022. The summons stated that Ancestral Supplements, LLC’s response was due December 19, 2022.

Failure to Prosecute

No timely response was filed. The opinion also states that Kevin Yan Luis failed to prosecute the case, meaning he did not take the required steps to move it forward. The Court ordered him to file a letter by January 18, 2023, showing why the case should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute. No letter had been filed by January 23, 2023.

Ruling

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party. The order made the discontinuance without prejudice to restoring the action to the Court’s calendar if an application to restore it was made by February 23, 2023. The order further stated that, if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion did not address the underlying claims.

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.