WILSON v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY et al
OPINION/ORDER DISMISSING CASE in accordance with L. Civ. R. 41.1 without prejudice and without cost to either party; that the Clerks office shall close this case. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 2/26/15. (DD, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil Action No.: I 3-cv-1 753
OPINION AND ORDER
CITY OF JERSEY CITY, JERSEY CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
CECCHI, District Judge.
This case arises out of allegations by Cathy Wilson (“Plaintiff’) against the City of Jersey
City, the Jersey City Police Department, and various fictitiously named defendants (collectively,
“Defendants”), asserting violations of State and Federal law. (Compi.’ at 1-9). Plaintiff filed the
original Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County on February 21, 2013
(Compi. at 1). On March 21, 2013, Defendants removed the action to this Court. (Defs. Notice of
Removal at 3). On August 28. 2013. Plaintiff filed a Consent and Registration” fonn to receive
documents electronically. (ECF No, 7). This was the last time Plaintiff made a filing with the Court
on this matter.
‘ECF No. 1-2.
ECF No. 1.
Defendants allege that on September 30, 2013, they attempted to serve Plaintiff with a set
of interrogatories and document demands. (Chambers Cert.
¶ 3). On February 6, 2014, the Court
entered a Text Order directing Plaintiff to serve responses to the outstanding discovery demands
by March 6, 2014. Defendants attempted to serve the Text Order upon Plaintiff on February 7 and
February 10, but the certified and regular mail was returned and labeled by the Postal Service as
“Not deliverable as addressed
unable to forward.” (Ex. D to Chambers Cert.). Defendants
subsequently noticed the Zip Code written on Plaintiff’s Consent and Registration form was
different than the Zip Code listed on the Complaint, and asked the Court for leave to re-serve to
the address listed on the Consent and Registration form. (Ex. E to Chambers Cert.). On March 19
and 21, Defendants attempted to re-serve the Text Order upon Plaintiff at the address listed on the
Consent and Registration form, but the mail was again returned and marked “Not deliverable as
unable to forward.” (Ex. H to Chambers Cert.)
Pursuant to Local Rule 10.1(a), an unrepresented party is required to notify the Court of
any change of its address. However, Plaintiff has not filed anything with the Court since August
28, 2013. Plaintiff has also failed to respond to Defendants’ discovery demands since September
30, 2014. Additionally, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which was
filed on June 23. 2014.
WHEREAS it appears that Plaintiff has failed to comply’ with the Court’s February 6, 2014
Text Order; and
WHEREAS it appears that Plaintiff did not notify the Court of her change of address as
ECF No. 15-1,
required under Local Rule 10.1(a); and
WHEREAS it appears that Plaintiff has been inactive in this case since filing its Consent
and Registration Form over sixteen (16) months ago; and
WHEREAS the Court finds that the interests of judicial economy would be served by
dismissing this action without prejudice
IT IS on the date hereof:
ORDERED that the above case be dismissed in accordance with L. Civ. R. 41.1 without
prejudice and without cost to either party; and it is
ORDERED that the Clerk’s office shall close this case.
CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J.
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?