Calderon Lara v. Knollwood Road Delicatessen Inc.
- Ona Wang
- 1:19-cv-09996-OTW
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Calderon Lara v. Knollwood Road Delicatessen Inc., Judge Nathan ordered plaintiffs to seek default judgment or explain the delay and serve defendants.
The plaintiffs were required to seek default judgment or explain the delay, serve the order on all defendants, and file proof of service. The remaining defendants were the subjects of the anticipated default-judgment motion.
What happened
In Calderon Lara v. Knollwood Road Delicatessen Inc., the plaintiffs had received certificates of default against all remaining defendants on March 13, 2020.
The court required the plaintiffs, within three weeks, to ask for default judgment or file a status update explaining why they should not do so. The plaintiffs also had to serve the order on all defendants and file proof of service by June 17, 2020.
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that failing to meet the deadline could lead to dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss any claims or decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Calderon Lara v. Knollwood Road Delicatessen Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09996-OTW
- Ona Wang
- June 10, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs received certificates of default against all remaining defendants on March 13, 2020. A certificate of default records a party’s failure to respond or otherwise defend, but it is not itself a default judgment.
Order
The court directed the plaintiffs to do one of two things within three weeks of the order: move for default judgment against the remaining defendants or file a status update explaining why they should not file that motion at that time. The court also required the plaintiffs to serve the order on all defendants and file affidavits of service on the electronic filing system by June 17, 2020.
Potential consequence
The court warned that failing to meet the deadline could result in dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not grant or deny a default-judgment motion, dismiss the claims, or decide the merits of the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.