Toro v. Awesome Diecast, LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-00810
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Toro v. Awesome Diecast, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case for failure to prosecute, allowing restoration by June 30, 2023.
Andrew Toro's action against Awesome Diecast, LLC was discontinued for failure to prosecute. Toro could seek to restore the action by June 30, 2023; otherwise, the order stated that the dismissal would be with prejudice.
What happened
In Toro v. Awesome Diecast, LLC, Andrew Toro filed a case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The court said Toro had not served Awesome Diecast or otherwise prosecuted the case.
The court had ordered Toro to serve the summons and complaint by May 24, 2023, and warned that failing to explain the lack of service could lead to dismissal. No proof of service was filed.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil discontinued the case for failure to prosecute, without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it by June 30, 2023. If no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Toro v. Awesome Diecast, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00810
- Vyskocil
- May 30, 2023
Background
Andrew Toro filed the complaint on January 31, 2023, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The court stated that Toro had done nothing to prosecute the case and had not served Awesome Diecast, LLC.
On May 17, 2023, the court ordered Toro to serve the summons and complaint by May 24, 2023. The court warned that, if Toro failed to explain in writing why service had not been made, the complaint could be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ruling
No proof of service was filed, and Toro had not prosecuted the case. The court therefore ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court's calendar if Toro applied to restore it by June 30, 2023. The order further stated that, if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.