Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 10, 2025

Martinez v. JLM Decorating, Inc.

Judge
Sarah Netburn
Docket
1:20-cv-02969
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureEmploymentFlsa
In one sentence

In Martinez v. JLM Decorating, Judge Abrams adopted a recommendation, struck four defendants’ answers, and directed default while leaving the case open as to Gold.

Who this affects

The order directly affects JLM Decorating Inc., JLM Decorating NYC Inc., Cosmopolitan Interior NY Corporation, and Josafath Arias, whose answers were stricken and against whom default was ordered. The case remains open as to Moshe Gold. Martinez and the certified class are affected because the case will proceed to a damages inquiry.

What happened

In Martinez v. JLM Decorating, Inc., Israel Martinez brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The court had certified a class, and the case involved discovery and class-notice orders.

The corporate defendants did not retain counsel for a sustained period, and Josafath Arias did not appear either with a lawyer or on his own. Magistrate Judge Netburn recommended striking those defendants’ answers and entering default. No defendant timely objected.

After reviewing the recommendation for clear error, Judge Ronnie Abrams found no error and adopted it in full. The court struck the answers of JLM Decorating Inc., JLM Decorating NYC Inc., Cosmopolitan Interior NY Corporation, and Josafath Arias, directed the Clerk to enter default against them, and referred the case to Judge Netburn for a damages inquiry. The case remains open as to Moshe Gold.

The detailed version

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

Case
Martinez v. JLM Decorating, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02969
Judge
Sarah Netburn
Date
Apr. 10, 2025

Background

Israel Martinez filed this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The court certified a class on March 20, 2024. After defendants repeatedly failed to comply with Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn’s orders concerning discovery and class notice, she ordered them to pay the plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred since April 2024.

Defendants’ attorney later moved to withdraw, and Judge Netburn granted that motion. The defendants then could not retain counsel for a sustained period. Judge Netburn explained to individual defendant Moshe Gold that the corporate defendants needed counsel to proceed and directed him to locate new counsel. She warned that failure to do so could result in their answers being stricken and a default being entered. She also directed individual defendant Josafath Arias to file a notice that he was appearing without a lawyer, but Arias did not do so.

Report and recommendation

On December 17, 2024, because no new counsel had appeared for the corporate defendants and Arias had not appeared either without a lawyer or with new counsel, Judge Netburn issued a report and recommendation. She recommended striking the affected defendants’ answers and entering default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). No defendant timely objected.

When no objection is made to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error on the record. Judge Ronnie Abrams conducted that review and found no error.

Ruling

The court adopted Judge Netburn’s report and recommendation in its entirety. It ordered that the answers of JLM Decorating Inc., JLM Decorating NYC Inc., Cosmopolitan Interior NY Corporation, and Josafath Arias be stricken. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment of default against those defendants and referred the matter to Judge Netburn for a damages inquiry by separate order. The case remains open as to Moshe Gold.

Because this order entered default based on defendants’ noncompliance and failure to maintain required representation, rather than deciding the underlying labor-law claims on their merits, this is a procedural order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.