The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge
Lateko Bank respectfully requests that the Court issue an order
dismissing the 20 plaintiffs who have failed to respond to its
Interrogatory 23 despite the Court's instructions that they do so
or face dismissal.
In its motion for summary judgment dated May 20, 2005, Lateko
Bank requested that the Court dismiss the claims of those
plaintiffs who still had not responded to Interrogatory 23, which
concerns whether the named plaintiff was presenting the claims of
other persons in this lawsuit.*fn1 On August 1, 2005, this
Court ruled that "plaintiffs who have not responded to
Interrogatory 23 shall complete and serve sworn answers to it
within two weeks of the date of this order. Any failure to do so
may result in dismissal of their claims." August 1, 2005 Order at
12. Two weeks after the Court's order was Monday, August 15,
Notwithstanding this clear admonition, 20 plaintiffs failed to
respond to Interrogatory 23 by the deadline. These plaintiffs are
Granted. Case dismissed as to Does 62, 73, 109, 129, 154, 246,
258, 551, 554, 597, 614, 690, 692, 700, 704, 787, 822, 827, 872
Interrogatory 23 is important because Lateko Bank has a right
to know the identities of the real parties in interest of the
claims against it in this lawsuit particularly in view of the
imminent trial of this case. The importance of obtaining answers
to this interrogatory has been made evident as it has been
revealed that certain plaintiffs are, in fact, presenting claims
on behalf of other persons.
SO ORDERED. The plaintiffs who still have refused to respond to
Interrogatory 23, despite being ordered by the Court to do so,
should now have their claims dismissed.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...