Jimenez v. Fernandez
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-10492
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jimenez v. Fernandez, Judge Furman set deadlines and a hearing for possible default judgment after defendants failed to respond.
Elida Jimenez and Maria Santos Martinez, and defendants Aura E. Fernandez and 3236 Bainbridge Ave. Food Corp. doing business as Mar & Tierra Restaurant and Lounge.
What happened
Jimenez v. Fernandez concerns a complaint filed by Elida Jimenez and Maria Santos Martinez against Aura E. Fernandez and 3236 Bainbridge Ave. Food Corp. The defendants were served on December 5, 2019, but had not answered or otherwise appeared by the time of this order.
The court set January 17, 2020, as the deadline for any motion for default judgment, and January 24, 2020, as the deadline for the defendants’ opposition. If a motion was filed, the defendants were ordered to appear on February 11, 2020, and explain why a judgment based on their failure to respond should not be entered.
Judge Jesse M. Furman did not enter a default judgment in this order. Instead, he scheduled briefing and a possible hearing, required the plaintiffs to serve the order and any motion papers on the defendants, and set procedures that would apply if a defendant appeared.
The detailed version
- Jimenez v. Fernandez · No. 1:19-cv-10492
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 3, 2020
Background
Elida Jimenez and Maria Santos Martinez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, sued Aura E. Fernandez, individually, and 3236 Bainbridge Ave. Food Corp. doing business as Mar & Tierra Restaurant and Lounge. The plaintiffs filed the complaint on November 12, 2019. The defendants were served on December 5, 2019, and proof of service was filed with the court.
As of January 3, 2020, neither defendant had answered the complaint or otherwise appeared in the case.
Order
The court ordered that any motion for default judgment—a request for judgment based on a party’s failure to respond—be filed by January 17, 2020, under Judge Furman’s individual rules. The defendants’ opposition, if any, was due by January 24, 2020.
If a motion for default judgment was filed, the defendants were ordered to appear and show cause on February 11, 2020, at 4:15 p.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in New York, New York, and explain why the court should not grant default judgment. Before that hearing, the plaintiffs had to electronically file a proposed default judgment order for the clerk’s approval.
The court cautioned that the corporate defendant could appear in federal court only through licensed counsel and that a default judgment could be entered against a corporation that repeatedly failed to appear through counsel.
Additional procedures and disposition
If a defendant appeared, opposed the motion, or requested additional time to respond to the complaint, the scheduled hearing would be treated as the initial pretrial conference for that defendant. The parties would then have to follow the procedures in the court’s November 13, 2019 order, including submitting a joint letter and proposed case-management plan and participating in an early mediation session.
The plaintiffs were ordered to serve the defendants by overnight courier with this order within one business day. They also had to serve any default-judgment motion and supporting papers within one business day after filing it, and file proof of each service within two business days.
The court scheduled briefing and a possible show-cause hearing; it did not enter default judgment in this order. The order was signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.