Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-6982 - Estate of Hermann Rene v. Sunharbor Manor Comprehensive Rehabilitation & Skilled Nursing et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-6982 - Estate of Hermann Rene v. Sunharbor Manor Comprehensive Rehabilitation & Skilled Nursing et al
May 5, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER - In this case, although the Court discerns no colorable justification for the Plaintiffs unexplained failure to serve the Defendants, see Zapata v. City of New York, 502 F.3d 192, 199 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1243, 128 S. Ct. 1483, 170 L. Ed. 2d 298 (2008), in an abundance of caution, it will exercise its discretion to grant one final 30-day extension to do so. Therefore, the Court is cautioning the Plaintiff for a second time: if, by Monday, June 6, 2016, proof of service upon the Defendants has not been filed in accordance with the applicable rules, the Court will dismiss this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) without further notice to the Estate. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 5/5/16. (Coleman, Laurie)
February 7, 2017
PDF | More
DECISION & ORDER denying 12 Motion to Stay; denying 13 Motion to Stay - Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the Estates motion for a stay of any supposedly related State court proceedings. Further, the Court notes that, while the Estates motion for a stay was on submission, several of the Defendants filed dispositive motions to dismiss the complaint. The time for responding to these motions has long since expired, and the Estate has neither filed a response nor requested an extension of time to do so. Now, in view of the Estates continued failure for more than a year to take any meaningful action to advance this case beyond the pleading phase; coupled with its failure to oppose dismissal motions by all of the appearing Defendants, the Court is directing that, on or before February 13, 2017, the Estate shall show cause, in writing filed on ECF, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Estate is on notice that, this being the third such warning necessitated by its inactivity, if, by February 14, 2017, good cause is not shown for its failure to prosecute, the Court, on its own motion, will dismiss this case without further notice. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 2/7/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)