Schorr v. Prudenti et al, No. 1:2015cv04054 - Document 23 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION: By letter dated September 17, 2015, the prose Plaintiff has requested a written opinion explaining the Court's bench ruling denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 18). In response to hi s motion, the Court set oral argument for noon on September 16, 2015. (See Dkt. No. 19.) Counsel for the Defendants opposing the motion was present at that time when the case was called; the Plaintiff was not. His motion was therefore denied. See Loa dholt v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 13 Civ. 567, 2014 WL 4980977, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2014) (dismissing case based on failure to appear at a show cause hearing); Graham v. RJM Acquisition LLC, No. 11 Civ. 4682, 2012 WL 1865534, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2012) (same); see also Wacha v. Town of Deerpark, No. 06 Civ. 15531, 2008 WL 2061268, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2008). (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/24/2015) (kgo)
Download PDF
Schorr v. Prudenti et al Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------x DAVID EVAN SCHORR, Plaintiff, 15 Civ. 4054(RWS) - against OPINION A. GAIL PRUDENTI, et al. 11 if Defendants. ·) · . \ 11 I! r ----------------------------------------x f; r' ' 1 \ 1 '· " " ' r "'I • --..- • ,'\t L I-< IlJ:,fJ: Sweet, D.J. r\.l r '. r ·i i i ; ,.. ·..• - r ,-. Ii .i.;.. l' j ;;·\I'1/', ·tt. ' ;_j\_/. =-:=:.-::__""-l: L -:·--··----· ·------..·· .if.L 251 i .. .. - 1•• . . c .. By letter dated September 17, 2015, the prose Plaintiff has requested a written opinion explaining the Court's bench ruling denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 18). In response to his motion, the Court set oral argument for noon on September 16, 2015. (See Dkt. No. 19.) Counsel for the Defendants opposing the motion was present at that time when the case was called; the Plaintiff was not. His motion was therefore denied. See Loadholt v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 13 Civ. 567, 2014 WL 4980977, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2014) (dismissing case based on failure to appear at a show cause hearing); Graham v. RJM Acquisition LLC, No. 11 Civ. 4682, 2012 WL 1865534, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2012) (same); see also Wacha v. Town of Dockets.Justia.com Deerpark, No. 06 Civ. 15531, 2008 WL 2061268, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2008). It is so ordered. New York, NY,1 September Z,,7, 2015