Jolin v. Casto
District Court, D. Connecticut
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REOPEN [DOC. # 14]
ARTERTON, District Judge.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 41(a), on March 8, 2006, the Court issued a notice to counsel indicating its intent to dismiss this case for failure to prosecute absent action or explanation within 20 days. See Notice [Doc. # 12]. The notice quoted Rule 41(a), including the provision that any “judgment entered by the Clerk under this rule may be suspended, altered or rescinded by the Court for cause shown.” Id. Having received no notice of action or explanation for the apparent failure to prosecute, the Court dismissed…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Enron Oil Corp. v. DiakuharaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- United States of America, Ex Rel., Walter M. Drake v. Norden Systems, Inc., and United Technologies CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- Davis v. MuslerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- American Alliance Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Eagle Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Sun v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming EnterpriseDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2015
- Bailey v. MarukaDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2024
- Freeman v. Tennessee Department of CorrectionDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2023
- Martin v. RodriguezDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2021
- Valentine v. Auto-Owners InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Utah · 2024