Zelvin v. Triibe, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-09253
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Zelvin v. Triibe, Judge Cronan extended the deadline to seek a default certificate and warned of possible dismissal for inaction.
Lynn Zelvin and Triibe, Inc.; the order sets a February 1, 2024 deadline for Zelvin and warns that the case may be dismissed if he does not comply.
What happened
In Zelvin v. Triibe, Inc., Defendant Triibe, Inc. failed to respond to the complaint by the extended January 17, 2024 deadline. No certificate of default was reflected on the docket.
The Court extended Plaintiff Lynn Zelvin’s deadline to seek a certificate of default to February 1, 2024. The Court stated that Plaintiff’s failure to meet that deadline could lead to dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute.
Judge John P. Cronan did not dismiss the case in this order. He extended the deadline and warned of the possible consequence if Plaintiff did not comply.
The detailed version
- Zelvin v. Triibe, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-09253
- John Cronan
- Jan. 25, 2024
Background
On January 4, 2024, the Court extended Triibe, Inc.’s deadline to respond to the complaint until January 17, 2024. The Court also ordered Lynn Zelvin to seek a certificate of default by January 24, 2024, if Triibe failed to respond. Triibe again failed to respond, and the docket did not reflect that Zelvin had obtained a certificate of default.
Order
Acting on its own initiative, the Court extended Zelvin’s deadline to seek a certificate of default to February 1, 2024. The Court stated that if Zelvin failed to meet that deadline, it might dismiss the case for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward or comply with a court order. The Court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan extended the deadline; he did not dismiss the case in this order. The opinion addresses case-management deadlines and the possibility of dismissal, not the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.