Luo v. Mayorkas
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-03990
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Luo v. Mayorkas, Judge Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice after Luo failed to serve respondents within 90 days or pursue it.
LIDUO LUO's case was dismissed without prejudice after Luo failed to serve the respondents and did not respond to the court's order or otherwise pursue the case.
What happened
In Luo v. Mayorkas, LIDUO LUO filed a petition asking the court to order the respondents to act. The court later questioned why the respondents had not been served within the required 90 days.
The court gave Luo an opportunity to explain the failure to serve the respondents or to describe when and how service had been completed. Luo did not respond and took no other action to move the case forward.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice because Luo failed to prosecute it. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Luo v. Mayorkas · No. 1:23-cv-03990
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 28, 2023
Background
On May 18, 2023, LIDUO LUO filed a petition for a court order directing the respondents to act. The opinion does not describe the underlying requested action in more detail.
Service and Failure to Proceed
The respondents were not served with the summons and petition within the required 90-day period. On August 31, 2023, the court ordered Luo to explain why service had not occurred or, if Luo believed service had occurred, to explain when and how it was made. Luo did not provide that explanation and took no other action to make progress in the case.
Ruling
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s inherent authority, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.