Bergon v. ASCAP! et al

Bergon v. ASCAP! et al

Case Number:	2:2024cv04660
Filed:	October 25, 2024
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
Nature of Suit:	Contract: Other
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 2, 2024	Filing 58 ORDER DISMISSING CASE: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., due to Plaintiff's failure to timely pay the $100 sanction the Court i mposed for making baseless accusations of judicial misconduct. The Complaint is also dismissed under Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., for Plaintiff's failure to timely serve the defendants. All motions and briefing schedules are dismissed as moot, in cluding Defendant ASCAP's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 55 ). The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address of record and note such m ailing on the docket. Although Plaintiff paid the filing fee, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that, should he seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury on 12/2/2024. (NB)
October 25, 2024	Filing 33 ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached order, Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal (ECF No. 7 ) is DENIED, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis ("IFP") (ECF No. 2 ) is DENIED as moot, Plaintiff is sanctioned in th e sum of $100.00 to be paid by November 18, 2024 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and Plaintiff's time to serve the defendants is extended through November 8, 2024.Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to timely pay this $100 sanction will result in the dismissal of his Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and that failure to timely serve the defendants and to provide proof of such ser vice on or before October 31, 2024 will lead to the dismissal of his Complaint without further notice and prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P.The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address o f record and note such mailing on the docket. Although Bergon paid the filing fee, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that, should he seek leave to appeal IFP, any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury on 10/25/2024. (NB)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 2, 2024

Filing 58 ORDER DISMISSING CASE: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., due to Plaintiff's failure to timely pay the $100 sanction the Court i mposed for making baseless accusations of judicial misconduct. The Complaint is also dismissed under Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., for Plaintiff's failure to timely serve the defendants. All motions and briefing schedules are dismissed as moot, in cluding Defendant ASCAP's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 55 ). The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address of record and note such m ailing on the docket. Although Plaintiff paid the filing fee, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that, should he seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury on 12/2/2024. (NB)

October 25, 2024

Filing 33 ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached order, Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal (ECF No. 7 ) is DENIED, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis ("IFP") (ECF No. 2 ) is DENIED as moot, Plaintiff is sanctioned in th e sum of $100.00 to be paid by November 18, 2024 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and Plaintiff's time to serve the defendants is extended through November 8, 2024.Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to timely pay this $100 sanction will result in the dismissal of his Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and that failure to timely serve the defendants and to provide proof of such ser vice on or before October 31, 2024 will lead to the dismissal of his Complaint without further notice and prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P.The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address o f record and note such mailing on the docket. Although Bergon paid the filing fee, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that, should he seek leave to appeal IFP, any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury on 10/25/2024. (NB)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bergon v. ASCAP! et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?