Brock v. CVS Corporation
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-04014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brock v. CVS Corporation, Judge Briccetti ordered the self-represented plaintiff to update his address and denied fee-free appeal status.
Terrell K. Brock, the self-represented plaintiff, and the defendants involved in the case, including CVS Corporation.
What happened
In Brock v. CVS Corporation, Terrell K. Brock was representing himself and had missed two initial conferences. The court had repeatedly ordered him to keep his address current and warned that continued noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
Brock appeared at a later conference and gave the court a new address, but a deposition notice sent there was returned as undeliverable. The court gave him until October 23, 2023, to provide his current address in writing and warned that failing to do so would be treated as abandoning the case.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also directed defense counsel to send the deposition notice to Brock’s email address. The court did not dismiss the case in this order, but it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Brock v. CVS Corporation · No. 7:22-cv-04014
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 22, 2023
Background
Terrell K. Brock, who was representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, failed to appear at initial conferences on June 14 and July 11, 2023. The court warned him in writing that the case could be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failing to prosecute the case and comply with court orders. The court also repeatedly reminded him that he had to notify the court in writing of any address change.
Brock appeared at an August 9, 2023, conference and told the court that the address then listed on the docket was his mother’s address. He provided a different current address, and the court updated the docket and again warned that another failure to comply could be treated as abandonment of the case and could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).
On September 22, 2023, counsel for the White Plains Defendants reported that a deposition notice sent to the docketed address had been returned as undeliverable.
Order
The court ordered Brock to provide his current address in writing by October 23, 2023. It again stated that failing to do so would be treated as abandoning the case and would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. This order did not itself dismiss the case.
The court also directed counsel for the White Plains Defendants to serve the deposition notice at an email address Brock had provided. Finally, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.