Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 22, 2025

Fernandez v. Llardo USA, Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:24-cv-09219
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Fernandez v. Llardo USA, Judge Furman dismissed the case without prejudice after Fernandez failed to seek default judgment by the deadline.

Who this affects

Jacqueline Fernandez’s case was dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. Llardo USA, Inc. was not required to defend against a default-judgment motion because none was filed.

What happened

In Fernandez v. Llardo USA, the court had given Jacqueline Fernandez until April 18, 2025, to file a motion asking for a judgment because the defendant had not responded. The court said a request for a clerk’s certificate of default was not enough.

Fernandez did not file the required motion by the deadline. The court concluded that this failure showed she was not pursuing the case and that dismissal for failure to prosecute was appropriate.

Judge Furman dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court chose dismissal without prejudice rather than dismissal with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fernandez v. Llardo USA, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-09219
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Apr. 22, 2025

Background

On April 4, 2025, the court gave Plaintiff Jacqueline Fernandez until April 18, 2025, to file a motion for default judgment against Llardo USA, Inc. A default judgment is a judgment entered when a party has not defended the case. The court specifically stated that a request for a Clerk’s Certificate of Default would not satisfy the order.

Fernandez did not file a motion for default judgment by the deadline. The court had warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to actively pursue the case.

Ruling

Judge Jesse M. Furman held that dismissal was warranted because Fernandez had not filed the required motion. The court recognized that federal courts may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, but concluded that dismissal without prejudice was more appropriate than dismissal with prejudice. The case was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

Disposition

The case was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

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.