Chowdhury v. Veon Ltd. et al

Filing 108

ORDER The docket reflects that Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint by May 5, 2023. Instead, by letter dated May 17, 2023, over two years after this case was first filed, he asks the Court to allow him additional time of unspecified l ength to engage legal counsel. Dkt. 105. That request, which was not filed forty-eight hours before his deadline to file a second amended complaint, as is required by 3.B of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, but was in stead filed nearly two weeks after the deadline, identifies no extraordinary circumstance that would justify granting a further extension. The request is therefore denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants, dismissing this case without prejudice. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John P. Cronan on 5/18/2023) (jca) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

Case 1:21-cv-03527-JPC-RWL Document 108 Filed 05/18/23 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
NAYEEM A. CHOWDHURY,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
VEON LTD. et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

21 Civ. 3527 (JPC) (RWL)
ORDER

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:
On February 28, 2023, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant VEON
Ltd.’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and denying Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s March 30, 2022 Opinion and Order dismissing Plaintiff’s initial
Complaint. Dkt. 94. The Court further granted Plaintiff leave to amend the Amended Complaint
within thirty days of the filing of the Opinion and Order. Id. at 12-13. By letter dated March 30,
2023, Plaintiff sought a two-week extension of his time to file a second amended complaint, Dkt.
95, which the Court granted, Dkt. 98. By letter dated April 17, 2023, Plaintiff requested a further
six-week extension of his time to file a second amended complaint, through May 30, 2023, Dkt.
101. The Court instead granted an extension only through May 5, 2023 and warned Plaintiff that
“[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, no further extensions will be granted.” Dkt. 104 at 2.
The docket reflects that Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint by May 5, 2023.
Instead, by letter dated May 17, 2023, over two years after this case was first filed, he asks the
Court to allow him additional time of unspecified length to engage legal counsel. Dkt. 105. That
request, which was not filed forty-eight hours before his deadline to file a second amended
complaint, as is required by 3.B of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, but

Case 1:21-cv-03527-JPC-RWL Document 108 Filed 05/18/23 Page 2 of 2

was instead filed nearly two weeks after the deadline, identifies no extraordinary circumstance that
would justify granting a further extension. The request is therefore denied. The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants, dismissing this case without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 18, 2023
New York, New York

__________________________________
JOHN P. CRONAN
United States District Judge

2