Legal Opinion

Shad v. Slow Dancing Music, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided February 15, 2000No. 87 Civ. 426(JES)PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SPRIZZO, District Judge.

Defendant Slow Dancing Music, Inc. (“Slow Dancing”), brings the instant motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Molly Shad (“Shad”) opposes the motion arguing that the delay was the product of settlement negotiations, that she received no prior warning regarding her failure to pursue the action, and that lesser sanctions are available. For the reasons discussed below, Slow Dancing’s motion to dismiss is granted.

BACKGROUND

Shad commenced the instant action on January…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Clarence R. Valentine v. Museum of Modern ArtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
  3. Lynda Peart v. City of New York, New York City Police Department, Raymond Kelly, David DinkinsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
  4. Shannon v. General Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Huang v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation LTDDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2022
  2. Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API