Cai v. Kegiang

Cai v. Kegiang

Plaintiff:	Wenjun Cai
Defendant:	Li Kegiang
Case Number:	1:2016cv07314
Filed:	September 19, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Queens
Presiding Judge:	Colleen McMahon
Nature of Suit:	Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
May 5, 2020	Filing 11 ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/5/2020) (mro)
April 9, 2020	Filing 10 ORDER: On September 19, 2016, the pro se plaintiff filed the above-captioned action and paid the requisite filing fees. Doc. 2. On October 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, Doc. 3, which she filed on Decembe r 19, 2016. On February 2, 2017, a summons was issued for Li Keqiang ("Li"). On April 4, 2017, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Doc. 7. On June 9, 2017, the summons for Li was returned as having been executed on May 16, 2017, by service made by mail. Doc. 9. There has been no communication from the plaintiff since then. The plaintiff is ORDERED to file a status report by May 2, 2020. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 4/9/2020) Copies Mailed Chambers of Edgardo Ramos. (mml)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 5, 2020

Filing 11 ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/5/2020) (mro)

April 9, 2020

Filing 10 ORDER: On September 19, 2016, the pro se plaintiff filed the above-captioned action and paid the requisite filing fees. Doc. 2. On October 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, Doc. 3, which she filed on Decembe r 19, 2016. On February 2, 2017, a summons was issued for Li Keqiang ("Li"). On April 4, 2017, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Doc. 7. On June 9, 2017, the summons for Li was returned as having been executed on May 16, 2017, by service made by mail. Doc. 9. There has been no communication from the plaintiff since then. The plaintiff is ORDERED to file a status report by May 2, 2020. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 4/9/2020) Copies Mailed Chambers of Edgardo Ramos. (mml)

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

Search for this case: Cai v. Kegiang
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Wenjun Cai
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Li Kegiang
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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?