Legal Opinion
Stoenescu v. Jablonsky
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 11, 1995No. 93 Civ. 3500 (JES)PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SPRIZZO, District Judge:
Plaintiff Maria Stoenescu, acting pro se, brings the instant action against defendants Elisabeth Jablonsky, Peter Knesky, James Pascale and Princeton Township (collectively “defendants”). Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants move to dismiss based upon Stoenescu’s failure to prosecute the above-captioned action. For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
BACKGROUND
On May 24, 1993, Stoenescu commenced the instant action by delivering her complaint to the Pro Se Office for the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
- Puett v. BlandfordCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Richard Chira v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Europacific Asset Management Corp. v. Tradescape, Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- Lediju v. New York City Department of SanitationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Jenkins v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Crocker v. DurkinDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2001
- Visco v. Brentwood Union Free School DistrictDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2014
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.