Christy v. Bastain

S.D. New York

Christy v. Bastain

DecidedMay 19, 2022

Docket1:19-cv-09666

StatusUnknown

This text of Christy v. Bastain (Christy v. Bastain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Christy v. Bastain, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : MICHAEL CHRISTY, : : Plaintiff, : : 19 Civ. 9666 (JPC) -v- : : ORDER S. BASTIAN et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:

On April 15, 2022, the Court extended the time for Plaintiff to oppose Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”), which was due on March 30, 2022, until April 29, 2022. Dkt. 116. Plaintiff did not file any opposition to the Motion by the April 29, 2022 deadline for him to do so, and the docket reflects that the Court’s April 15, 2022 Order, which was sent to the address provided by Plaintiff on the docket, was returned on May 18, 2022 as “Not Deliverable As Addressed Unable To Forward, Return to Sender, MOVED.” Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, by June 2, 2022, Plaintiff shall oppose Defendants’ Motion or provide an updated address to the Court. Plaintiff is reminded that it is his responsibility to keep a current address on file with the Clerk’s Office, and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing a court to dismiss an action for failure of the plaintiff “to prosecute or to comply with . . . a court order”); LeSane v. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir. 2001) (“Although the text of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) expressly addresses only the case in which a defendant moves for dismissal of an action, it is unquestioned that Rule 41(b) also gives the district court authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s case sua sponte for failure to prosecute.”). It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall advise the Court of any other addresses for Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 19, 2022 Ve eof 7B New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : MICHAEL CHRISTY, : : Plaintiff, : : 19 Civ. 9666 (JPC) -v- : : ORDER S. BASTIAN et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:

On April 15, 2022, the Court extended the time for Plaintiff to oppose Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”), which was due on March 30, 2022, until April 29, 2022. Dkt. 116. Plaintiff did not file any opposition to the Motion by the April 29, 2022 deadline for him to do so, and the docket reflects that the Court’s April 15, 2022 Order, which was sent to the address provided by Plaintiff on the docket, was returned on May 18, 2022 as “Not Deliverable As Addressed Unable To Forward, Return to Sender, MOVED.” Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, by June 2, 2022, Plaintiff shall oppose Defendants’ Motion or provide an updated address to the Court. Plaintiff is reminded that it is his responsibility to keep a current address on file with the Clerk’s Office, and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing a court to dismiss an action for failure of the plaintiff “to prosecute or to comply with . . . a court order”); LeSane v. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir. 2001) (“Although the text of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) expressly addresses only the case in which a defendant moves for dismissal of an action, it is unquestioned that Rule 41(b) also gives the district court authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s case sua sponte for failure to prosecute.”). It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall advise the Court of any other addresses for Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 19, 2022 Ve eof 7B New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Christy v. Bastain, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christy-v-bastain-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack