Toro v. Condor, LLC
- Rearden
- 1:22-cv-07362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Toro v. Condor, Judge Rearden dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute after Toro failed to properly seek default judgment.
Jasmine Toro’s case was dismissed without prejudice. Condor, LLC was not required to respond on the merits because the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
What happened
In Toro v. Condor, LLC, Condor was served with the complaint but did not respond or appear. Toro then sought a default judgment using a proposed order to show cause, rather than the motion required by the court’s rules.
The court ordered Toro to file a proper default-judgment motion by June 26, 2023, and warned that failure to do so could lead to dismissal. Toro did not file the required motion or take any other action.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s inherent authority. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Toro v. Condor, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07362
- Rearden
- July 5, 2023
Background
Jasmine Toro filed the complaint on August 29, 2022. Condor, LLC was served on October 5, 2022, and its response was due on October 26, 2022. The opinion states that Condor did not respond to the complaint or otherwise appear.
On March 7, 2023, Toro applied for a default judgment using a proposed order to show cause. The court’s individual rules required a party seeking default judgment to file a motion instead.
Court’s Action
On June 16, 2023, the court directed Toro to file an application complying with the required procedures by June 26, 2023. The court warned that failing to submit a timely and proper motion could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Toro did not file the required motion or otherwise take action to proceed with the case.
Disposition
Judge Rearden dismissed the case, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and the court’s inherent power. The clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion does not decide whether Toro was entitled to a default judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.