Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 6, 2024

Gongora v. NYC Health & Hospital Corp.

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:23-cv-10093
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissPro Se
In one sentence

In Gongora v. NYC Health & Hospital Corp., Judge Rochon gave pro se plaintiff more time to oppose dismissal, warning the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Who this affects

Diana P. Gongora, who was given additional time to respond to NYC Health & Hospital Corp.’s motion to dismiss.

What happened

In Gongora v. NYC Health & Hospital Corp., the defendant asked the court to dismiss Diana P. Gongora’s complaint. Gongora’s deadline to respond passed without a response or other communication.

Because Gongora was representing herself, the court gave her until May 24, 2024, to respond to the dismissal request. The court said it might treat the request as unopposed or dismiss the case if she did not respond.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Gongora a copy of the order. The order did not decide whether the defendant’s dismissal request should be granted.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gongora v. NYC Health & Hospital Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-10093
Judge
Rochon
Date
May 6, 2024

Background

NYC Health & Hospital Corp. moved to dismiss the complaint on April 16, 2024. Diana P. Gongora’s deadline to respond passed without a response or other communication. The opinion identifies Gongora as proceeding without a lawyer.

Court’s Action

The court allowed Gongora until May 24, 2024, to respond to the motion to dismiss. The court stated that, if she did not respond, it might treat the motion as unopposed or dismiss the action for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to continue pursuing the case. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Gongora a copy of the order.

Disposition

The order extended Gongora’s response deadline and did not rule on the merits of the motion to dismiss. It did not grant or deny that motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.