Cajero Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-02532
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cajero Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings, Judge Engelmayer ordered pretrial filings by March 5, warning that failure could dismiss the case.
The order affected the plaintiffs, the defendants, and their counsel by imposing pretrial-filing deadlines and warning that failure to comply could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. It also addressed the representation of two corporate defendants after their counsel withdrew.
What happened
In Cajero Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc., the court had previously set deadlines for the parties’ joint pretrial order and other required filings. Plaintiffs’ counsel had also been directed to explain its handling of discovery, and defense counsel had been allowed to withdraw.
The parties missed the February 23, 2021 deadline and had not requested more time. Plaintiffs also had not sought default-related filings against the corporate defendants whose counsel withdrew. The court gave the parties until March 5, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. to file the required materials.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer warned that failing to meet the new deadline would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right to file a new lawsuit. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Cajero Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-02532
- Paul Engelmayer
- Feb. 26, 2021
Background
The court held a conference on December 23, 2020, and set February 5, 2021, as the deadline for the parties to submit a joint proposed pretrial order and other filings required by the court’s Individual Rule 5.A–B. The court also criticized plaintiffs’ counsel for waiting many months after the discovery deadline to seek discovery, including failing to obtain any discovery regarding one plaintiff, and ordered counsel to submit a sworn explanation addressing counsel’s professional obligations to the three clients.
The court later extended the pretrial-submission deadline to February 23. On February 5, the court granted defense counsel’s motion to withdraw over the plaintiffs’ objection. The court explained that two defendants were corporations and could not proceed in federal court without a lawyer. It stated that it would consider a motion for entry of default if those defendants did not obtain replacement counsel. Plaintiffs later received permission to seek default against those corporate defendants, while the court confirmed that other deadlines remained in effect.
Missed Deadline
The parties did not file the required pretrial submissions by February 23, 2021. They had not filed them by the date of this order and had not requested an extension. Plaintiffs also had not sought a clerk’s certificate of default or moved for default judgment against the corporate defendants.
Order
The court ordered the parties to file the joint proposed pretrial order and all other filings required by Individual Rule 5.A–B, including any motions in limine, by Friday, March 5, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. Oppositions to motions in limine were due March 12, 2021. The court stated that, absent extraordinary circumstances, it did not expect to extend the deadlines further.
The court warned that failure to meet the March 5 deadline would result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute, without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right to file a new lawsuit. The order did not itself dismiss the case. It also stated that defendants’ failure to cooperate with the joint filing would not excuse plaintiffs from filing their portions by the deadline.
Disposition
This was a case-management order setting new deadlines and warning of a possible future dismissal. It did not grant or deny a motion for dismissal and did not enter a final dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.