Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 21, 2021

Velasquez v. Hana Wine & Spirit Corp.

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:21-cv-02727
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Velasquez v. Hana Wine, Judge Cronan ordered Velasquez to report the case’s status and warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for lack of prosecution.

Who this affects

Ricardo Velasquez was required to update the court, and Hana Wine & Spirit Corp. and WID Realty Corp. remained nonappearing defendants facing a possible request for default judgment.

What happened

In Velasquez v. Hana Wine & Spirit Corp., Ricardo Velasquez sued Hana Wine & Spirit Corp. and WID Realty Corp. The defendants were served with the complaint but had not appeared or filed answers by the date of the order.

The court ordered Velasquez to file a letter within one week describing the status of the case, including whether he planned to seek a judgment against the defendants because they had not responded. The court did not dismiss the case or enter a judgment against the defendants.

Judge John P. Cronan warned that the court may dismiss the action for failure to prosecute if Velasquez did not provide the required update.

The detailed version

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

Case
Velasquez v. Hana Wine & Spirit Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-02727
Judge
John Cronan
Date
June 21, 2021

Background

Ricardo Velasquez filed the complaint on March 30, 2021. Hana Wine & Spirit Corp. and WID Realty Corp. were served on April 26, 2021, and their answers were due on May 17, 2021. Neither defendant had appeared in the case or answered the complaint by the time of the order.

Court’s Order

The court directed Velasquez to file a status letter within one week. The letter had to explain the status of the litigation and state whether Velasquez intended to seek default judgment, which is a judgment requested against a party that has failed to respond to the lawsuit.

The court warned that it could dismiss the action for failure to prosecute if Velasquez failed to update the court. The order did not itself dismiss the action, enter default judgment, or decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.