Sanchez v. Arsh Landmark General Construction, Corp.
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-00632
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Sanchez v. Arsh Landmark General Construction, Corp., Judge Ho ordered defendants to respond to a pending default-judgment motion and explain why judgment should not enter.
Miguel Zepeda Sanchez, Arsh Landmark General Construction, Corp., and Garib Taneja are affected by the deadlines, service requirements, and hearing set for the default-judgment motion.
What happened
In Sanchez v. Arsh Landmark General Construction, Corp., Miguel Zepeda Sanchez asked the court for a default judgment against Arsh Landmark General Construction, Corp. and Garib Taneja. The opinion does not decide whether default judgment should be entered.
The court ordered defendants to file any opposition by June 23, 2025, and to appear on June 24 to explain why default judgment should not be granted. It also ordered Sanchez to serve the motion, supporting papers, and the order on defendants by overnight courier and file proof of service.
Judge Dale E. Ho also cautioned that a corporation may appear in federal court only through a licensed lawyer and may face default judgment if it repeatedly fails to do so. The court set procedures for considering the motion but did not grant or deny it.
The detailed version
- Sanchez v. Arsh Landmark General Construction, Corp. · No. 1:25-cv-00632
- Ho
- June 10, 2025
Background
On June 9, 2025, Plaintiff Miguel Zepeda Sanchez filed a motion seeking a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 55.2(b). A default judgment is a judgment that may be entered when a party fails to defend the case, but this order did not decide whether such a judgment should be entered.
Orders
The court ordered Defendants Arsh Landmark General Construction, Corp. and Garib Taneja to file any opposition to the motion by June 23, 2025. It also ordered Defendants to appear and explain on June 24, 2025, at 11:30 a.m., why the court should not grant default judgment against them. The order stated that the conference would be held remotely by telephone unless the court ordered otherwise.
The court further ordered Plaintiff to serve Defendants, by overnight courier and within one business day of filing each document, with a copy of the default-judgment motion and supporting papers and a copy of the order. Plaintiff must file proof of each service on the docket within two business days after service.
Corporate representation
The court cautioned that corporate entities may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. It cited decisions stating that a default judgment may be entered against a corporate entity that repeatedly fails to appear through counsel.
Disposition
Judge Dale E. Ho issued scheduling, notice, and appearance directives concerning the pending motion. The order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.