PROCTOR v. MCCOY
| Demetrius Proctor |
| Travis Mccoy, Music Famamanem LP, Epileptic Music, Thou Art The Hunger, Bruno Mars, Ari Levine and Phillip Lawrence |
| 1:2015cv03766 |
| May 15, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Unassigned |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
67
ORDER... This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See LeSane v. Hall's Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir. 2001) ([I]t is unquestioned that Rule 41(b) also gives the dist rict court authority to dismiss a plaintiff's case sua sponte for failure to prosecute...). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail this Order to Plaintiff and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 11/5/20) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
66
OPINION AND ORDER re: 49 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint: In light of Proctor's failure to properly serve McCoy, the Court presently lacks personal jurisdiction over McCoy. See Dynegy Midstream Servs., LP v. Trammochem, 451 F.3d 89, 94 (2d Cir. 2006) ("Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied."). The Court may not consider McCoy's argu ments, and thinks it unnecessary to evaluate the failure to prosecute issue as to McCoy. The Court therefore GRANTS McCoy's motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(5). As to the other Defendants, Proctor is ORDERED to show cause why his claim should not be dismissed for failure to serve. The Marshals attempted to serve the remaining defendants at the same 11th Street Address as McCoy, which Proctor provided them. Service was unsuccessful and none of the other defendants have appeared. Rule 4m o f the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure allows the Court to extend the time for service for good cause shown, but Proctor never sought such an extension. Proctor is further ORDERED to show cause why this claim should not be dismissed for failure to pro secute as to the remaining defendants in light of his lengthy delays and dilatory conduct, including failing to specify what specific copyrighted material he alleges has been copied by Defendants, which the Court deems prejudicial to defendants. Proc tor should make such showing in writing by October 21, 2020. For the reasons above, this case is hereby DISMISSED as to McCoy. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate McCoy from this case and to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Proctor. (Travis Mccoy terminated.) (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 9/30/2020) (jwh) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
60
ORDER re: 59 Letter filed by Travis Mccoy. The Court is in receipt of Defendants' letter dated March 11, 2020, opposing pro se Plaintiff's request for a time extension. ECF No. 59. Given Plaintiff's pro se status, Plaintiff&# 039;s untimely request for a time extension is hereby GRANTED. See Elliott v. Nestle Waters N. Am. Inc., No. 13 civ. 6331, 2014 WL 1795297, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2014). In light of the ongoing public health emergency caused by COVID-19, Plaintiff shall file his opposition to Defendants' motion on or before June 1, 2020. Defendants are directed to serve a copy of this Order to Plaintiff no later than March 30, 2020. Defendants shall file proof of service with the Court on or before April 3, 2020. SO ORDERED. ( Responses due by 6/1/2020, Service due by 4/3/2020.) (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 3/23/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER: On October 21,2019, the Court set a briefing schedule for Defendants' motion to dismiss. ECF No. 48. Subsequently, on December 12, 2019, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, asked for a time extension, which the Court grant ed; under the new briefing schedule, Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss was due on January 20, 2020. ECF No. 55. On March 2, 2020, after not receiving an opposition from Plaintiff, the Court issued an Order to S how Cause as to why Defendants' motion to dismiss should not be treated as unopposed. ECF 56. However, Plaintiff had written the Court a letter dated February 3, 2020, which was not published on ECF until March 4, 2020. ECF No. 57. Pursu ant to Second Circuit precedent, pro se submissions are to be liberally construed. See O'Neal v. Spota, 744 F. App'x 35, 36 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting McLeod v. Jewish Guild For the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017)) ("[W]e l iberally construe pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants, reading such submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest."). Accordingly, the Court interprets Plaintiff's letter as a request for a time extension to respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to respond to Plaintiff's letter on or before March 11, 2020. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 3/9/2020) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mro)
|
|
Filing
55
ORDER: Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to adhere to the following briefing: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss: January 20, 2020; Reply to Opposition: February 3, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 12/12/2019) ( Responses due by 1/20/2020, Replies due by 2/3/2020.) (ks)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
