Moncion v. Flat Rate Movers Ltd
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-02865
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Moncion v. Flat Rate Movers, Judge Carter closed the case after Moncion did not respond to the court’s order.
Taniel Moncion and Flat Rate Movers, Ltd.; the case was closed after Moncion did not respond to the court’s order.
What happened
Taniel Moncion sued Flat Rate Movers, Ltd. in the Southern District of New York. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute.
On October 16, 2023, the court ordered Moncion to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to move it forward. Moncion did not respond or request more time by October 23.
The court directed the clerk to close the case. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. did not decide the underlying legal issues.
The detailed version
- Moncion v. Flat Rate Movers Ltd · No. 1:21-cv-02865
- Andrew Carter
- Oct. 24, 2023
Background
The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or dispute between Taniel Moncion and Flat Rate Movers, Ltd.
Court’s Action
On October 16, 2023, the court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring a party to explain why the court should not take a specified action. The court required Moncion to explain why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) or the court’s inherent authority. Moncion did not respond and did not request an extension by October 23, 2023.
The court therefore directed the clerk to close the case. The order did not expressly state that the case was dismissed, and it did not address the merits of the underlying claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the case was terminated based on failure to prosecute, without a decision on the underlying legal issues.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.