The opinion of the court was delivered by: VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge
On August 31, 2005, plaintiffs Israel Martinez ("Martinez"),
Rosa Cruz, Ethelwaldo Rivera, Pete Perez and Mike Moreno
(collectively, the "Plaintiffs") moved before this Court by way
of an order to show cause for an order mandating that defendant
the Board of Elections of the City of New York ("Board of
Elections") place Martinez's name on the ballot for the
Democratic primary election held on September 13, 2005 as a
candidate for the New York City Council for the 18th Council
District of Bronx County in the State of New York. The Court,
after hearing oral argument on the matter on September 6, 2005,
denied Martinez's motion for preliminary relief and dismissed all
claims raised by Martinez in the Complaint for various reasons.
See Cruz v. Board of Elections, No. 05 Civ. 7679, 2005 WL
2209164 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2005). The Court had additionally
ordered that the remaining plaintiffs Rosa Cruz, Ethelwaldo Rivera, Pete Perez and Mike Moreno show cause
by September 9, 2005 in a written submission to this Court as to
why the Complaint in its entirety should not be dismissed. See
id. The Court did not receive any submission from the remaining
plaintiffs in this action.
The Court thereafter issued a second Order, dated September 20,
2005, ordering that plaintiffs Rosa Cruz, Ethelwaldo Rivera, Pete
Perez and Mike Moreno show cause by no later than September 29,
2005 as to why the Complaint in its entirety should not be
dismissed on the grounds of mootness, and informing them that
should they fail to respond to the order, the Complaint would be
dismissed with prejudice in its entirety for failure to prosecute
and the case closed. See Cruz v. Board of Elections, No. 05
Civ. 7679, 2005 WL 2298120 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2005). The Court
has received no response to the September 20 Order. In fact, all
correspondence mailed to plaintiffs Cruz, Rivera, Perez and
Moreno at the addresses indicated in the Complaint was returned
to the Court unopened.
The Court finds that plaintiffs have not been diligent in
pursuing their claims. For that, and for the reasons stated in
the preceding orders and at the September 6 Hearing on this
matter, it is hereby ORDERED that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice in its
entirety for failure to prosecute.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...