Traynor v. Mouser Electronics, Inc.

S.D. New York

Traynor v. Mouser Electronics, Inc.

DecidedDecember 16, 2019

Docket1:19-cv-08950

StatusUnknown

This text of Traynor v. Mouser Electronics, Inc. (Traynor v. Mouser Electronics, Inc.) 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

Traynor v. Mouser Electronics, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC#: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: |7 | [E114

YASEEN TRAYNOR, also known as YASEEN TRAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, No. 19-CV-8950 (RA) ORDER V. MOUSER ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: On November 18, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff's response to Defendant’s motion was due by December 2, 2019. The Court has not received a response from Plaintiff. No later than December 20, 2019, Plaintiff shall file either a response to Defendant’s motion or a letter indicating that he does not intend to file a response. If Plaintiff informs the Court that he intends to pursue this action but chooses not to oppose Defendant’s motion, then the Court will deem the motion fully briefed and take it under submission. See Goldberg v. Danaher, 599 F.3d 181, 183-84 (2d Cir. 2010) (“Because a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) presents a pure legal question, based on allegations contained within the four corners of the complaint, the district court is equipped to make a determination on the merits.”); McCall v. Pataki, 232 F.3d 321, 322-23 (2d Cir. 2000) (“{A]lthough a party is of course to be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to an opponent’s motion, the sufficiency of a complaint is a matter of law that the court is capable of determining based on its own reading of the pleading and knowledge of the law.”). If, however, Plaintiff does not respond to this Order, either by responding to the motion to dismiss or by submitting a letter indicating that he does not intend to

do so, then the Court may dismiss this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). SO ORDERED. ‘

Dated: December 16, 2019 New York, New York Ronnié Abrams United States District Judge

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

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC#: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: |7 | [E114

YASEEN TRAYNOR, also known as YASEEN TRAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, No. 19-CV-8950 (RA) ORDER V. MOUSER ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: On November 18, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff's response to Defendant’s motion was due by December 2, 2019. The Court has not received a response from Plaintiff. No later than December 20, 2019, Plaintiff shall file either a response to Defendant’s motion or a letter indicating that he does not intend to file a response. If Plaintiff informs the Court that he intends to pursue this action but chooses not to oppose Defendant’s motion, then the Court will deem the motion fully briefed and take it under submission. See Goldberg v. Danaher, 599 F.3d 181, 183-84 (2d Cir. 2010) (“Because a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) presents a pure legal question, based on allegations contained within the four corners of the complaint, the district court is equipped to make a determination on the merits.”); McCall v. Pataki, 232 F.3d 321, 322-23 (2d Cir. 2000) (“{A]lthough a party is of course to be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to an opponent’s motion, the sufficiency of a complaint is a matter of law that the court is capable of determining based on its own reading of the pleading and knowledge of the law.”). If, however, Plaintiff does not respond to this Order, either by responding to the motion to dismiss or by submitting a letter indicating that he does not intend to

do so, then the Court may dismiss this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). SO ORDERED. ‘

Dated: December 16, 2019 New York, New York Ronnié Abrams United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Traynor v. Mouser Electronics, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/traynor-v-mouser-electronics-inc-nysd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack