Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 6, 2025

Martinez Herrera v. LDJ Contracting, LLC

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:23-cv-10326
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Martinez Herrera v. LDJ Contracting, LLC, Judge Halpern ordered steps toward default judgment and warned of possible dismissal without prejudice.

Who this affects

Irene Martinez Herrera and the defaulting defendants, LDJ Contracting, LLC and Luis DeJesus.

What happened

In Martinez Herrera v. LDJ Contracting, LLC, Irene Martinez Herrera sued LDJ Contracting, LLC and Luis DeJesus. The defendants were served, and the clerk entered defaults against them. The court later allowed Herrera to file an amended complaint after a change in law concerning injury requirements for New York Labor Law § 195 claims.

The amended complaint added no new claims, and the defendants did not respond. The court therefore directed Herrera to follow the court’s procedures for seeking a default judgment by March 20, 2025.

Judge Halpern warned that failing to follow those procedures and the order strictly could lead to dismissal of the entire case without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

The detailed version

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

Case
Martinez Herrera v. LDJ Contracting, LLC · No. 7:23-cv-10326
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Mar. 6, 2025

Background

Irene Martinez Herrera filed this action on November 27, 2023, against LDJ Contracting, LLC and Luis DeJesus. DeJesus was served on January 3, 2024, and LDJ Contracting, LLC was served on May 16, 2024. The clerk entered certificates of default against both defendants on August 21, 2024.

Herrera later asked for permission to amend her complaint because of a recent Second Circuit decision requiring a plaintiff to show a concrete injury, as required by Article III of the Constitution, for claims under New York Labor Law § 195. The court permitted her to file an amended complaint on February 7, 2025. The amended complaint did not add any claims, so the court stated that the defaulting defendants did not need to be served again. The docket showed that neither defendant had responded to the amended complaint.

Order

The court ordered Herrera to comply by March 20, 2025, with Individual Practices Rule 4(B), which governs obtaining a default judgment against the defendants. A default judgment is a judgment entered when a defendant fails to respond or otherwise defend as required.

The court did not enter a default judgment or decide the merits of Herrera’s claims in this order. Instead, it directed her to complete the required procedure. Judge Philip M. Halpern warned that failure to strictly comply with the court’s Individual Practices and the order could result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.