Vuppala v. Joey Pepperoni's Broadway Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 30, 2024
Docket1:21-cv-02446
StatusUnknown

This text of Vuppala v. Joey Pepperoni's Broadway Inc. (Vuppala v. Joey Pepperoni's Broadway 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
Vuppala v. Joey Pepperoni's Broadway Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 9/30/2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------------X : KIRAN VUPPALA, : : Plaintiff, : 1:21-cv-2446-GHW : -against- : ORDER : JOEY PEPPERONI’S BROADWAY INC., a New : York corporation doing business as Joey Pepperoni’s Pizza, : and 381 BROADWAY REALTY CORP., a New York : corporation, : : Defendants. : X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: In the Court’s August 13, 2024 order, Plaintiff was ordered to file a memorandum of law by September 2, 2024 providing a “detailed explanation of his position” regarding the effect of Defendant 381 Broadway Realty Corp.’s bankruptcy proceeding on this case. Dkt. No. 25. The memorandum of law was required to address, among other things, “the effect of the bankruptcy proceeding on Plaintiff’s claims and the consequences of Plaintiff’s failure to file a proof of claim despite being on notice of the bankruptcy proceedings.” Id. Plaintiff was required to file the memorandum “regardless of whether Plaintiff is able to speak with counsel for 381 Broadway Realty Corp.” Id. It is now September 30, 2024, and the Court has not received a memorandum of law from Plaintiff. Plaintiff is directed to comply with the Court’s August 13, 2024 order forthwith, and in any event no later than October 2, 2024, the due date for the parties’ joint status letter and proposed case management plan. Id. Plaintiff is reminded that a party’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders may result in the imposition of sanctions. E.g., Mitchell v. Lyons Pro. Servs., Inc., 708 F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir. 2013) (“Every district court has the inherent power to supervise and control its own proceedings and to sanction counsel or a litigant for disobeying the court’s orders.” (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). SO ORDERED. Dated: September 30, 2024 73 14, A ad New York, New York Jhon H. WOODS United States District Judge

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

Related

Mitchell v. Lyons Professional Services, Inc.
708 F.3d 463 (Second Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Vuppala v. Joey Pepperoni's Broadway Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vuppala-v-joey-pepperonis-broadway-inc-nysd-2024.