Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 26, 2023

Toro v. Concourse Team Express, LLC

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:23-cv-06595
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Toro v. Concourse Team Express, Judge Oetken dismissed the action without prejudice because Toro failed to prosecute after a court order.

Who this affects

Luis Toro and the proposed similarly situated plaintiffs; Concourse Team Express, LLC; and the court docket.

What happened

In Toro v. Concourse Team Express, LLC, Luis Toro brought a case on behalf of himself and others, seeking relief and damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state laws. He served Concourse on August 16, 2023.

The court ordered Toro to file a status letter or seek a default judgment by October 23, 2023. Toro did neither and took no other affirmative step to move the case forward.

The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning it could be filed again. Judge J. Paul Oetken also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Toro v. Concourse Team Express, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-06595
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Oct. 26, 2023

Background

Luis Toro sued Concourse Team Express, LLC, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The complaint sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state laws. Toro served Concourse on August 16, 2023.

On October 2, 2023, the court directed Toro to file a status letter or move for default judgment by October 23, 2023. The court warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Toro did not respond to the order and did not otherwise take an affirmative step to prosecute the case.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with a court order. The court concluded that dismissal was appropriate because Toro had notice that further delay could result in dismissal and had caused unreasonable delay.

Disposition

The action was dismissed without prejudice to refiling. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The order was issued by Judge J. Paul Oetken.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.