Sojka v. Mudge
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-03741
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sojka v. Mudge, Judge Tarnofsky granted Mudge’s military-service stay request and paused the case until April 1, 2025.
Defendant Sterling Mudge, whose military-service stay request was granted; the case proceedings were stayed until April 1, 2025.
What happened
In Sojka v. Mudge, Defendant Sterling Mudge asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to pause the proceedings under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a federal law protecting servicemembers involved in court cases.
The court explained that the law requires a stay of at least 90 days when a servicemember provides information showing that current military duties prevent participation and submits a commanding officer’s statement confirming those circumstances. The court found that Mudge’s submission met those requirements.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted the motion to stay and stayed the action until April 1, 2025. The order addressed only the pause in proceedings and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Sojka v. Mudge · No. 1:23-cv-03741
- Analisa Torres
- Sept. 3, 2024
Background
Defendant Sterling Mudge moved to stay, or temporarily pause, the proceedings under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50 U.S.C. § 3932. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in the case.
Legal standard
The SCRA allows a servicemember who is in military service and has received notice of an action to request a stay of at least 90 days. The request must include: (1) a communication explaining how current military duties materially affect the servicemember’s ability to appear and stating when the servicemember will be available; and (2) a communication from the commanding officer stating that current military duty prevents the servicemember from appearing and that military leave is not authorized at that time. When those requirements are satisfied, the stay is mandatory.
Ruling
The court found that Mudge’s submission fulfilled the SCRA’s requirements. It therefore granted the motion to stay and stayed the action until April 1, 2025. The clerk was directed to stay the case. The order did not resolve the merits of the underlying dispute.
Effect
The proceedings were paused through April 1, 2025, based on Mudge’s military-service application. The opinion does not state what happened after that date.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.