Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 9, 2023

Yan Luis v. Blue Eye, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-06470
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

Yan Luis v. Blue Eye was discontinued for failure to prosecute, Judge Vyskocil ruled, because service was not completed or documented.

Who this affects

Kevin Yan Luis and the proposed similarly situated plaintiffs whose action was discontinued; the court did not decide the underlying claims.

What happened

In Kevin Yan Luis v. Blue Eye, Inc., Kevin Yan Luis filed a proposed class action, but no proof showed that Blue Eye, Inc. had been served. The court ordered him to serve the company and later gave him more time after he reported an unsuccessful service attempt.

The court warned that the case could be dismissed if Yan Luis did not file an affidavit of service by February 8, 2023. No affidavit was filed, and the court found that he had not prosecuted the case.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Yan Luis v. Blue Eye, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06470
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Feb. 9, 2023

Background

Kevin Yan Luis filed this proposed class action on July 29, 2022. The docket did not contain proof that Blue Eye, Inc. had been served.

Orders Concerning Service

On October 31, 2022, the court ordered Yan Luis to serve Blue Eye and file proof of service by November 22, 2022. The court warned that, if service was not made and Yan Luis did not explain in writing why, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Yan Luis took no action by that deadline.

On December 1, 2022, the court issued an order requiring Yan Luis to explain why the case should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court stated that Yan Luis remained responsible for prosecuting the case, including when his chosen counsel failed to follow court orders and prosecute the case.

On December 7, 2022, Yan Luis explained that he had unsuccessfully attempted service and requested an additional 60 days. The court granted that request and ordered him to file an affidavit of service by February 8, 2023, warning that failure to serve within that time could result in dismissal.

Ruling

No affidavit of service was filed by the deadline, and the court found that Yan Luis had not prosecuted the case. The court therefore ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party. The order did not address the merits of 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.