Texcahau Cerezo v. 53 West 72nd Street Cafe LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-05492
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Texcahau Cerezo v. 53 West 72nd Street Café, Judge Abrams ordered defendants to explain mediation noncompliance and warned repeated violations could bring sanctions.
The defendants, who were ordered to explain their failure to comply with mediation requirements, and the plaintiff, whose mediation efforts were affected by those failures.
What happened
In Texcahau Cerezo v. 53 West 72nd Street Café LLC, the court had referred the case to mediation, but mediation was canceled twice after defendants failed to meet required steps.
The court ordered defendants to file a letter by June 3, 2021, explaining why they had not followed the court’s orders or participated in mediation in good faith.
Judge Ronnie Abrams warned that repeated failures could result in sanctions. This order did not impose sanctions or decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Texcahau Cerezo v. 53 West 72nd Street Cafe LLC · No. 1:20-cv-05492
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 28, 2021
Background
On October 28, 2020, the court referred the action to mediation. The mediation was scheduled for April 20, 2021. Plaintiff later notified the court that the mediation had been canceled because defendants did not submit the required pre-mediation materials. Defendants acknowledged responsibility for the delay and asked for one final opportunity to mediate.
The court referred the action to mediation again. Plaintiff then notified the court that the second mediation was canceled because defendants failed to comply with the mediator’s request to provide dates for mediation.
Order
The court ordered defendants to file a letter no later than June 3, 2021, explaining why they had not complied with the court’s orders and why they had not participated in mediation in good faith. The court warned that repeated failures to comply with its orders and participate in mediation in good faith might result in sanctions.
This order addressed defendants’ compliance with mediation-related requirements. It did not impose sanctions and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.