Alliance Laundry Systems LLC v. Hiltsley

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: June 25, 2025
• Docket: 7:22-cv-08725
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: ALLIANCE LAUNDRY SYSTEMS, LLC, —— DATE FILED: 06/25/2025 Plaintiff, -against- 22-cv-8725 (NSR) MARC HILTSEY, MICHELLE T. HILTSLEY, ORDER and LEONARD KEEF, Defendants.

NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: On May 22, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC (‘Plaintiff’) to show cause in writing on or before June 12, 2025, as to why Plaintiff’s complaint should not be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b). To date, the deadline expired thirteen days ago, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause. Indeed, it has been over two years since the Court or Defendant have heard from Plaintiff. Particularly, not only has Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action impeded the Court’s effort to “avoid calendar congestion and ensure an orderly and expeditious disposition of cases,” Cortez v. Suffolk Cty. Corr. Facility, No. 15-CV-1957 (JFB) (AKT), 2016 WL 6302088, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2016), but the adversary process has been halted because of . . . essentially unresponsive part[ies],” Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 835-36 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “Dismissal for want of prosecution is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial judge.” Peart v. City of New York, 992 F.2d 458, 461 (2d Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Given the significant passage of time in the instant action, the Court exercises its discretion and DISMISSES the above-captioned action without prejudice for want of prosecution. The Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to terminate this action. SO ORDERED: Dated: June 25, 2025 White Plains, NY A pe i i I _ f □□□ NELSON S, ROMAN United States District Judge