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 plaintiffs to explain a late default-judgment motion and warned of possible denial and dismissal.
The plaintiffs and the corporate defendants Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc. and Harlem Sushi Inc.; the court required the plaintiffs to explain their late default-judgment filing and warned that the claims against the corporate defendants could be dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
Cajero Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings concerns two corporate defendants whose lawyers withdrew, leaving them without representation. The court had told the plaintiffs several times that they could seek a default judgment against those defendants.
The plaintiffs did not request entry of default by the court’s April 20, 2021 deadline. They filed a default-judgment motion one day late, on April 21, without explaining the delay.
Judge Engelmayer ordered the plaintiffs to file a declaration by April 23, 2021, explaining the late filing and why the court should not deny the default-judgment motion and dismiss the claims against the corporate defendants without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Cajero Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-02532
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 22, 2021
Background
On February 5, 2021, the court granted defense counsel’s motions to withdraw. The withdrawal left Sushi Sushi Holdings, Inc. and Harlem Sushi Inc. without lawyers. The court stated that corporate entities cannot represent themselves without counsel and that it would consider a default-judgment motion against them.
The court later repeated that the plaintiffs could seek default judgment against the unrepresented corporate defendants and denied the defendants’ request to stay default proceedings. At the April 6, 2021 final pretrial conference, however, the plaintiffs had not requested a certificate of default or moved for entry of default against any defendant.
Court’s Action
Because of the delay, the court set April 20, 2021, as the deadline for the plaintiffs to move for default. It warned that failure to meet that deadline could lead to dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims against Sushi Sushi Holdings and Harlem Sushi without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The plaintiffs filed a default-judgment motion on April 21, one day after the deadline, without explanation. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer directed them to file, by 5:00 p.m. on April 23, a declaration explaining the late filing and why the court should not deny the default-judgment motion and dismiss the corporate defendants for failure to prosecute. The opinion does not decide the default-judgment motion or dismiss the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.