From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bruno v. City of N.Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Sep 30, 2013
10-cv-210 (RMM) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2013)

Opinion

10-cv-210 (RMM)

2013-09-30

DESTINY BRUNO et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM

AND ORDER

Gold, S., United States Magistrate Judge:

Currently pending before the Court is a motion by defendants seeking dismissal of all claims asserted by plaintiff M.M. Docket Entry 272. The parties have consented to have me decide the motion. Docket Entry 277. The motion is granted for the reasons set forth below.

Defendants' original motion also sought dismissal of plaintiff A.M.'s claims. Those claims were dismissed without opposition by Order entered on July 232, 2013.

For reasons not directly relevant here, I issued an Order on July 10, 2013 that directed plaintiff M.M. to appear in person at a conference to be held on July 18, 2013. The Order alerted M.M. that failure to appear could result in dismissal of her claims.

Plaintiff M.M. did not appear for the conference as directed on July 18, 2013. Rather than recommend dismissal at that time, however, I directed plaintiffs' counsel to submit a letter by August 2, 2013 indicating whether and how M.M. intended to proceed with her claims and proposing a date for M.M. to appear in Court. Docket Entry 293. Counsel for plaintiffs submitted a letter on August 2, 2013, relating that they had been having difficulty contacting M.M. Docket Entry 302.

On August 5, 2013, I issued another Order, this one directing that M.M. appear before the Court for a conference on September 16, 2013. Again, plaintiff M.M. failed to appear. I therefore directed counsel for plaintiffs to show cause by September 23, 2013 why any claims asserted by M.M. should not be dismissed based upon her failure to abide by the Court's scheduling orders. Tr. of Sept. 16, 2013, Docket Entry 316, at 6-7.

Plaintiffs have not responded to the Court's Order that they explain why M.M. should be permitted to proceed as a representative plaintiff despite her failures to appear. According to a letter submitted by defendants' counsel, counsel for plaintiffs does not intend to submit any response to the Court's directive or other opposition to dismissal of M.M.'s claims. Docket Entry 317.

For all these reasons, defendants' motion is granted. The claims asserted by M.M. individually and as a class representative are dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

________________

STEVEN M. GOLD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Brooklyn, New York
September 30, 2013
U:\failtopro -MM 10cv210.docx


Summaries of

Bruno v. City of N.Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Sep 30, 2013
10-cv-210 (RMM) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2013)
Case details for

Bruno v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:DESTINY BRUNO et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Sep 30, 2013

Citations

10-cv-210 (RMM) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2013)