Reid v. Buscemi, LLC, 19-cv-6541 (AJN). (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20191211749
Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN , District Judge . On November 19, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service on Defendant by November 26, 2019. Dkt. No. 7. The Court further ordered Plaintiff to serve the November 19 Order on Defendant and file proof of that service on the public docket within 5 days. Id. In the same Order, the Court put Plaintiff on notice that failure to comply with the Court's November 19 Order could result in his claim being dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Summary: ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN , District Judge . On November 19, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service on Defendant by November 26, 2019. Dkt. No. 7. The Court further ordered Plaintiff to serve the November 19 Order on Defendant and file proof of that service on the public docket within 5 days. Id. In the same Order, the Court put Plaintiff on notice that failure to comply with the Court's November 19 Order could result in his claim being dismissed for failure to prosecute. ..
More
ORDER
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge.
On November 19, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service on Defendant by November 26, 2019. Dkt. No. 7. The Court further ordered Plaintiff to serve the November 19 Order on Defendant and file proof of that service on the public docket within 5 days. Id. In the same Order, the Court put Plaintiff on notice that failure to comply with the Court's November 19 Order could result in his claim being dismissed for failure to prosecute. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed either proof of service on the public docket, nor has he requested an extension of time to do so.
Plaintiff is hereby ordered to file proof of service of the Complaint on Defendant by December 16, 2019. Failure to do so, or alternatively to file a letter with the Court providing good reason for the delay, shall result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ruzsa v. Rubenstein & Sendy Attys. at Law, 520 F.3d 176, 178 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[I]n light of [plaintiff's] failure to respond to the notice threatening dismissal, it is equally unclear that a `lesser sanction' would have proved effective in this case.").
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
