Castillo Rosario v. Lovely Twins Wines & Liquors Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-07941
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Castillo Rosario v. Lovely Twins Wines & Liquors, Judge Caproni set March 5 deadline for Plaintiff’s default-judgment motion and warned against further extensions.
The plaintiff and all four defendants in the action.
What happened
In Castillo Rosario v. Lovely Twins Wines & Liquors Inc., the plaintiff asked for 45 more days to prepare a motion seeking a judgment because the defendants had not responded. The plaintiff said the defendants were in default and did not oppose the request.
The court ordered the plaintiff to file a request requiring the defendants to explain why that judgment should not be entered against all four defendants by March 5, 2021. The court also said it was unlikely to grant more extensions absent extraordinary circumstances.
Judge Valerie Caproni further directed counsel to notify the court if negotiations began or if the parties reached a settlement, which would require court approval under the cited appellate decision. The opinion does not expressly state whether the requested extension was granted.
The detailed version
- Castillo Rosario v. Lovely Twins Wines & Liquors Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-07941
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 18, 2021
Background
The plaintiff’s counsel asked for a 45-day extension of the deadline for filing a motion for default judgment, changing the proposed deadline from January 21 to March 8, 2021. Counsel said the extension was needed to assemble the required paperwork and continue trying to contact the defendants. Counsel also stated that all defendants were in default and that there was no objection to the extension.
Court’s Order
The court directed the plaintiff to file a motion asking the court to require all four defendants to explain why default judgment should not be entered against them. The deadline was March 5, 2021. The court stated that, absent extraordinary circumstances, it was unlikely to grant any further extensions.
The court also reminded the plaintiff that counsel must inform the court if negotiations begin with any defendant. If the parties reached a settlement, they were required to submit the agreement for court approval under the cited appellate decision. The text provided does not expressly say that the requested 45-day extension was granted or denied; it states the March 5 filing deadline.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.