Toro v. GMT Games, LLC
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-06011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Toro v. GMT Games, Judge Rochon ordered Plaintiff to seek default judgment after GMT Games failed to respond, warning of possible dismissal for delay.
Plaintiff was required to file a motion for default judgment by March 3, 2023. GMT Games, LLC faced the possibility of a default-judgment motion and a potential dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute if Plaintiff did not comply.
What happened
In Toro v. GMT Games, LLC, the court said Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 28, 2022. The court had previously dismissed GMT Games’ motion to dismiss the original complaint.
The court explained that the First Amended Complaint was properly served because GMT Games had already appeared and its lawyer was registered with the court’s electronic filing system. GMT Games had not responded to the amended complaint by the date of this order.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered Plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment by March 3, 2023, following the court’s rules. The order warned that failing to file on time could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Toro v. GMT Games, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-06011
- Rochon
- Feb. 15, 2023
Background
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 28, 2022. The court stated that it had previously dismissed GMT Games’ motion to dismiss the original complaint.
Service and Failure to Respond
The court determined that service of the First Amended Complaint was effective on November 28, 2022. GMT Games had already appeared in the action, and its lawyer was registered to receive filings through the court’s electronic filing system. Despite effective service, GMT Games had not responded to the First Amended Complaint as of the date of the order.
Order
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered Plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment by March 3, 2023, in accordance with the court’s Individual Rules and Local Rule 55. The court did not enter default judgment in this order. Instead, it warned that failing to file the motion on time could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Classification
This is a procedural order. It addressed the next step after the defendant’s failure to respond and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.