Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 14, 2021

Jaquez v. Awesome Office, Inc.

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:21-cv-02437
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Jaquez v. Awesome Office, Judge Cronan ordered a joint status update and warned that the case could be dismissed if Plaintiff did not provide one.

Who this affects

Ramon Jaquez and Awesome Office, Inc. were required to provide a joint status update; the court also warned that the action could be dismissed if the litigation was not prosecuted.

What happened

Ramon Jaquez sued Awesome Office, Inc. on behalf of himself and others in March 2021. The court had extended the deadline for Awesome Office to respond so the parties could discuss settlement.

Awesome Office had not responded to the complaint, and Jaquez had not asked the court to enter a judgment because of that failure. The court therefore ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by July 11, 2021, describing the case’s status.

Judge John P. Cronan warned that the court could dismiss the action on its own for failure to prosecute if Jaquez did not update the court. The order did not dismiss the case or decide the claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Jaquez v. Awesome Office, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-02437
Judge
John Cronan
Date
June 14, 2021

Background

Ramon Jaquez filed this action against Awesome Office, Inc. on March 19, 2021, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. On April 12, 2021, the Court extended Awesome Office’s deadline to respond to the complaint until May 13, 2021, so the parties could have additional time for settlement discussions.

Order

As of June 14, 2021, Awesome Office had not responded to the complaint, and Jaquez had not moved for default judgment, which is a request for judgment based on a party’s failure to respond. The Court ordered the parties to submit a joint status letter by no later than July 11, 2021, describing the status of the case.

The Court warned that it might dismiss the action on its own for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. The Court did not dismiss the action, enter default judgment, or decide the merits of Jaquez’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.