Oropeza v. Made In Mexico Uptown Corp.

Background

Plaintiff Salomon Oropeza had filed a renewed motion seeking default judgment against Made In Mexico Uptown Corp. and Ismael Bourdier. The court had granted Oropeza’s second request to postpone the hearing on that motion. In its June 3, 2025 order, the court directed Oropeza to personally serve the defendants with orders concerning the hearing and to file proof of service by June 9, 2025. The court warned that failing to comply could lead to sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute.

The court stated that Oropeza failed to comply with the June 3 order. It also referred to two earlier orders requiring him to show cause—explain why—the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow court orders. The court had previously denied an earlier default-judgment motion without prejudice, sanctioned counsel monetarily, and warned Oropeza and counsel several times that additional sanctions were possible.

Ruling

The court issued a third order to show cause. It ordered Oropeza to file a letter explaining why the case should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. It separately ordered Oropeza’s counsel to explain why the court should not impose further sanctions on her instead of dismissing the case. The court also stated that Oropeza personally remained responsible for prosecuting the case and that counsel had to inform him of the order. The opinion states that the response was due by noon on June 12, 2024.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil further ordered that Oropeza’s renewed motion for default judgment was DENIED without prejudice. The hearing scheduled for June 20, 2025 was ADJOURNED sine die, meaning it was postponed without a new date being set. The court warned that future failures could result in monetary sanctions against counsel and Oropeza, limits on claims, evidence, or motion practice, and dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk was asked to terminate the pending motion at ECF No. 21.

Effect of the Order

The court did not enter default judgment and did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it required Oropeza and counsel to explain the failure to follow the court’s orders and warned that dismissal or other sanctions could follow.