Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 7, 2025

Morales v. Uveral Meat Market & Grocery Corp.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:24-cv-08609
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
FlsaCivil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Morales v. Uveral Meat Market & Grocery Corp., Judge Vyskocil denied default judgment after defendants appeared and answered late, allowing the case to proceed.

Who this affects

Morales’s default-judgment request was denied, and the case against the remaining defendants will proceed through discovery and ordinary litigation rather than by default judgment. The opinion states that claims against Jonathan Vargas were voluntarily dismissed.

What happened

Morales filed a Fair Labor Standards Act case against Uveral Meat Market & Grocery Corp., Jahn Cruz Ynfante, Mayelin Cruz, and Jonathan Vargas. After the defendants did not initially respond, the Clerk issued certificates of default, and Morales moved for default judgment against Uveral Meat Market & Grocery Corp., Ynfante, and Cruz. Morales voluntarily dismissed the claims against Vargas.

Before the scheduled default-judgment hearing, defense counsel appeared and filed an answer, although it was several months late. The court explained that default judgment is not automatic when a party fails to respond and that courts generally prefer resolving disputes on their merits.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Morales’s motion for entry of default judgment and adjourned the scheduled hearing without setting a new date. She ordered the parties to begin discovery, meet and confer about settlement, and file a joint case-management letter and proposed plan by June 11, 2025.

The detailed version

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

Case
Morales v. Uveral Meat Market & Grocery Corp. · No. 1:24-cv-08609
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
May 7, 2025

Background

Marcos Morales brought a Fair Labor Standards Act action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The defendants named in the caption are Uveral Meat Market & Grocery Corp., Jahn Cruz Ynfante, Mayelin Cruz, and Jonathan Vargas. The opinion states that service filings showed different response deadlines for the defendants, and that no responses were initially filed.

At Morales’s request, the Clerk of Court issued certificates of default for each defendant. Morales then moved for default judgment against Uveral Meat Market & Grocery Corp., Ynfante, and Cruz, and voluntarily dismissed the claims against Vargas. The court scheduled a hearing on the default-judgment motion for May 13, 2025.

Court’s reasoning

Under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, obtaining judgment based on a party’s failure to defend generally involves two steps: entry of default and then entry of default judgment. The court explained that a plaintiff is not automatically entitled to default judgment merely because a defendant failed to appear or respond. The court also noted the preference for resolving disputes on their merits.

After the hearing was scheduled, defense counsel appeared and filed a corporate disclosure statement and an answer. Although the answer was several months late, the court concluded that the defendants’ appearance allowed the dispute to be resolved on its merits.

Ruling and case-management orders

The court denied Morales’s motion for entry of default judgment. It also adjourned the May 13, 2025 default hearing without setting a new date and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 31.

The court ordered the parties to immediately begin discovery, including exchanging initial disclosures under Rule 26 if they had not already done so. Within 14 days of the order, the parties had to meet and confer for at least one hour about settlement. The court also ordered them to file a joint letter and proposed case-management plan by June 11, 2025. The order warned that failure to comply with court rules, discovery obligations, or the order could result in sanctions, including monetary penalties, dismissal or preclusion of claims or defenses, or exclusion of arguments or evidence.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.