Sanchez v. Mogools
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-02588
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sanchez v. Mogools, Judge Failla let Sanchez seek default judgment and sanctions after defendants failed to participate in discovery and Mogools lacked counsel.
Luis Miguel Sanchez may pursue default judgment against Mogools, Inc. and Eliezer Garcia and may present his requested sanctions. The order does not itself enter default judgment or impose sanctions against either defendant.
What happened
In Luis Miguel Sanchez v. Mogools, Inc., et al., Sanchez asked for permission to seek default and sanctions. He said Eliezer Garcia repeatedly failed to appear for a deposition or cooperate, while Mogools, Inc. remained without a lawyer after its prior counsel withdrew.
The court granted Sanchez’s application. It allowed him to pursue default judgment under the court’s procedures and address his requested sanctions in the supporting papers, but it did not itself enter default judgment or impose sanctions. Sanchez must submit a proposed order to show cause without emergency relief by December 5, 2025.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla also adjourned the scheduled pretrial conference without setting a new date and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 66. The court noted that a default judgment would likely address Sanchez’s claims for backpay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees.
The detailed version
- Sanchez v. Mogools · No. 1:24-cv-02588
- Katherine Failla
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Sanchez asked for leave, meaning permission, to move for default and sanctions against Mogools, Inc. and Eliezer Garcia. He relied on two alleged forms of nonparticipation. First, he said Mogools remained without legal counsel after the court allowed its prior attorney to withdraw on January 31, 2025, and that the corporation had not participated in discovery or otherwise defended the case. Second, he said Garcia failed to appear for a deposition scheduled for September 3, 2025, did not provide alternative dates after later communications, and failed to appear or confirm his availability for a deposition the parties had agreed to hold on October 7, 2025.
Sanchez requested default against both defendants and sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and the court’s inherent authority. The requested sanctions included default judgment, preventing defendants from offering testimony, striking their answer or defenses, treating their conduct as contempt of court, and awarding deposition-related costs and attorneys’ fees.
Ruling
The court granted Sanchez’s application. It stated that defendants had not responded during the three business days the court allowed. The court authorized Sanchez to pursue default judgment under Rule 4(I) and Attachment A of the judge’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases. It also allowed Sanchez to address the requested sanctions in submissions supporting a proposed order to show cause. The court required that proposed order, without emergency relief, to be filed by December 5, 2025.
The court did not enter default judgment in this order and did not impose the requested sanctions. It observed that default judgment would likely address Sanchez’s requests for backpay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees, and that default judgment might make the contemplated sanctions unnecessary. The court adjourned the post-fact-discovery pretrial conference without setting a new date and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 66.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.