Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 2, 2024

Caballero de la Cruz v. Pastrami Prince Inc.

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:20-cv-04643
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Caballero de la Cruz v. Pastrami Prince Inc., Judge Cronan extended Steven Friedman’s deadline to respond to the complaint after he missed the prior deadline.

Who this affects

Steven Friedman, the plaintiffs, and the other parties because the order extended Friedman’s deadline and described possible consequences for failing to comply with court orders.

What happened

In Caballero de la Cruz v. Pastrami Prince Inc., the court said Steven Friedman had not responded to the complaint by the June 30, 2024 deadline previously ordered by the court.

The court extended Friedman’s response deadline to July 5, 2024. It also instructed the plaintiff to seek another Certificate of Default by July 9 if Friedman again failed to respond.

Judge John P. Cronan reminded the parties that they must follow court orders and warned that noncompliance may result in sanctions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Caballero de la Cruz v. Pastrami Prince Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04643
Judge
John Cronan
Date
July 2, 2024

Background

On May 30, 2024, the Court vacated the entry of default judgment against Defendant Steven Friedman and ordered him to respond to the Complaint by June 30, 2024. The Court stated that the deadline had passed and that the docket did not show a response from Friedman.

Ruling

Acting on its own, the Court extended Friedman’s deadline to respond to the Complaint until July 5, 2024. The Court directed the plaintiff to seek another Certificate of Default by July 9, 2024, if Friedman failed to respond by the new deadline. A Certificate of Default is a court filing documenting a party’s failure to respond.

Judge’s Warning

Judge John P. Cronan reminded the parties that all litigants must comply with court orders and stated that failing to do so may result in sanctions. This order addressed Friedman’s response deadline and did not decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.