Donna-Marie Cooke v. Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc.
- Ona Wang
- 1:22-cv-02026
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cooke v. Consolidated Edison, Judge Wang granted Cooke’s request to dismiss the case without prejudice, subject to a 14-day restoration period.
The pro se plaintiff, Charmaine Donna-Marie Cooke, and Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc.; the action was dismissed without prejudice, with either party allowed to seek restoration by June 8, 2023.
What happened
Charmaine Donna-Marie Cooke sued Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. The court held a status conference on May 25, 2023, where Cooke, who represented herself, asked to voluntarily dismiss the case. Consolidated Edison did not oppose the request.
The court granted Cooke’s request and dismissed the case without prejudice. The dismissal was subject to a 14-day period ending June 8, 2023, during which either party could ask by letter to restore the case to the court’s calendar.
Judge Ona T. Wang issued the order. The court explained that the 14-day period gave Cooke time to use the court’s resources for people without lawyers and to decide whether to continue this case rather than file a new one.
The detailed version
- Donna-Marie Cooke v. Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02026
- Ona Wang
- May 25, 2023
Background
The court held a status conference on May 25, 2023. Charmaine Donna-Marie Cooke, the plaintiff, represented herself. During the conference, she orally moved for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which allows a court to permit a plaintiff to dismiss a complaint. Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc., the defendant, did not oppose the motion.
Ruling
The court granted Cooke’s motion. It dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not permanently bar the action from being brought again. The order provided that either party could apply by letter within 14 days—by June 8, 2023—to restore the action to the court’s calendar.
Judge Ona T. Wang explained that the 14-day period was provided so Cooke could use the court’s resources for people representing themselves and could change her mind about proceeding with the case instead of bringing a new case in the future. The clerk was directed to serve Cooke with a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.