Pashkov et al v. Amadeus Piano Co., Inc. et al
Filing
20
Order: SO ORDERED that Pashkov's claims are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute this action. The claims of Plaintiff Yury Serkov ("Serkov") remain pending. Serkov is hereby ordered to inform the Court, by serving and filing a letter on or before August 13, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., whether he intends to proceed with this action. Serkov is advised that failure to inform the Court by August 13, 2 014 whether he intends to proceed with this action will result in his claims being dismissed in their entirety with prejudice, and without further notice, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute this ac tion. Plaintiffs counsel is again advised that while his motion to withdraw remains pending, he is responsible for notifying his clients, Pashkov and Serkov, of this order and the directives contained herein. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 7/24/2014. (Florio, Lisa)
D}f
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------)(
ALE)(ANDERPASHKOV,YURYSERKOV,
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
-against-
13-CV-6772 (SJF)(GRB)
AMADEUS PIANO CO., INC.,
MIKHAIL FEYGIN, EVA FEYGIN,
Defendants.
----ยท---------------------------------------------------------)(
FEUERSTEIN, J:
FtLE9
IN CLERK'S OF'FICE
U S DISTRICT COURT E 0 N y
*
JUL2 4 Z014
*
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
On July 2, 2014, this Court ordered that plaintiff Alexander Pashkov ("Pashkov") was to
appear for a deposition on July 7, 2014 with a Russian interpreter, and advised the parties that
Pashkov's "[t]ailure to appear for the scheduled deposition with an interpreter will result in
dismissal of plaintiffs case." [Docket Entry No. 15]. On July 7, 2014, Pashkov appeared for his
deposition without a Russian interpreter. [Docket Entry No. 18].
On July 10, 2014, this Court ordered Pashkov to show cause, by filing an affidavit by
July 21, 2014, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to appear for his deposition on
July 7, 2014 with a Russian interpreter as ordered by this Court on July 2, 2014, and advised
Pashkov that failure to comply with the Order to Show Cause will result in his claims being
dismissed in their entirety with prejudice, and without further notice, pursuant to Rule 41 (b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Docket Entry No. 19]. The July 10,2014 Order to Show
Cause further advised that while Pashkov's counsel's motion to withdraw as attorney remains
pending, Pashkov's counsel is responsible for notifying Pashkov of the Court's order. [Docket
Entry No. 19]. In violation of this Court's July 10, 2014 Order to Show Cause, Pashkov did not
file an affidavit by July 21, 2014 explaining why this action should not be dismissed.
Accordingly, Pashkov's claims are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice pursuant to
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute this action.
The claims of Plaintiff Yury Serkov ("Serkov") remain pending. Serkov is hereby
ordered to inform the Court, by serving and filing a letter on or before August 13, 2014 at
5:00 p.m., whether he intends to proceed with this action. Serkov is advised that failure to
inform the Court by August 13, 2014 whether he intends to proceed with this action will
result in his claims being dismissed in their entirety with prejudice, and without further
notice, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to
prosecute this action.
Plaintiffs counsel is again advised that while his motion to withdraw remains pending,
he is responsible for notifying his clients, Pashkov and Serkov, of this order and the directives
contained herein.
SO ORDERED.
s/ Sandra J. Feuerstein
Sandra J. Feuerstein
United States District Judge
Dated: July 24, 2014
Central Islip, New York
2
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?