Ortega Juarez v. Mi Mexico Mini Market & Grocery Inc.
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:23-cv-06978
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ortega Juarez v. Mi Mexico, Judge Rochon vacated Cecilio Lezama’s default judgment based on a preference for resolving disputes on their merits.
Cecilio Lezama, whose default judgment was vacated; the plaintiffs and the other defendants were affected by the clarification that the earlier order erroneously applied to all defendants.
What happened
In Ortega Juarez v. Mi Mexico Mini Market & Grocery Inc., a default judgment had been entered against all defendants, including Cecilio Lezama.
Lezama asked the court to cancel the judgment against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The plaintiffs did not oppose his request.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ruled that relief was justified and vacated the default judgment against Lezama. The court did not vacate the judgment against the other defendants, and this order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Ortega Juarez v. Mi Mexico Mini Market & Grocery Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06978
- Stewart Aaron
- Jan. 27, 2025
Background
On January 26, 2024, the court entered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against all defendants: Mi Mexico Mini Market & Grocery Inc., Cecilio Lezama, Rene Lezama, and Jael Lezama. On December 31, 2024, Cecilio Lezama moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to vacate, meaning cancel, the default judgment entered against him. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that Rule 60 allows a final default judgment to be set aside for reasons including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, misconduct by an opposing party, or another reason justifying relief. The court also relied on the Second Circuit’s general disfavor of default judgments and its preference for resolving disputes on their merits.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon found that relief from the default judgment against Cecilio Lezama was justified and ordered that judgment vacated. The Clerk of Court was also directed to vacate an earlier order because it had erroneously applied to all defendants. The opinion does not state that the default judgment against the other defendants was vacated, and it does not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.