De Los Santos v. 94 Corner Cafe Corp.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:21-cv-01577
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In De Los Santos v. 94 Corner Cafe, Judge Vyskocil postponed default-judgment motions, extended deadlines, and allowed individual defendants to seek dismissal.
The order directly affected 94 Corner Cafe Corp., which still had to obtain licensed counsel, the individual defendants, who received conditional permission to file a dismissal motion, and Felipe Cirne De Los Santos, whose settlement-reporting and response deadlines were extended or set.
What happened
In De Los Santos v. 94 Corner Cafe Corp., the corporation repeatedly failed to hire a lawyer, even after the court warned that it could not represent itself and might face default judgment. The individual defendants also sought dismissal and said the corporation was having difficulty finding counsel.
The court decided not to consider a motion for default judgment against the corporation yet. Instead, it extended the settlement-status deadline, allowed the individual defendants to file a motion to dismiss if they first engaged in good-faith settlement discussions, and reminded the corporation that it could file papers only through a licensed lawyer.
Judge Vyskocil set deadlines for the anticipated motion to dismiss and warned that further violations could lead to sanctions, including preventing claims or defenses. The order did not decide whether the plaintiff’s claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- De Los Santos v. 94 Corner Cafe Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-01577
- Katharine Parker
- Nov. 8, 2021
Background
Felipe Cirne De Los Santos filed the action against 94 Corner Cafe Corp. and individual defendants Mohinder Singh, Balwinder Singh, Parmajit Kaur, and Kadra Zarwi. The opinion identifies the matter as a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The plaintiff served the summons and complaint on all defendants.
The court repeatedly told 94 Corner Cafe Corp. that a corporation cannot represent itself in federal court and must appear through a licensed lawyer. The court set and extended deadlines for the corporation to retain counsel and file an appearance. The corporation advised the court that it could not secure counsel by the extended deadline. Mohinder Singh was identified in the opinion as a self-represented defendant. The individual defendants sought permission to pursue a motion to dismiss.
Default Judgment
A default judgment is a judgment entered against a party that fails to defend the case. The court stated that a corporation that repeatedly fails to appear through counsel may be subject to default judgment. The court also discussed the possibility that the defendants could be jointly responsible for damages, which could avoid inconsistent judgments if the corporation and individual defendants were treated differently.
The court nevertheless decided that it would not consider motions for entry of default judgment at that time. It chose first to address the individual defendants’ proposed motion to dismiss. The court explained that this approach could conserve judicial resources and that a ruling favoring the individual defendants could affect whether a default judgment against the corporation would be appropriate.
Orders and Deadlines
The court extended the deadline for the plaintiff to report on the status of settlement discussions from November 17, 2021, to November 30, 2021. The report was to address whether settlement discussions occurred, when and how they occurred, whether they produced a settlement, whether they were continuing, and whether mediation or a magistrate judge could help resolve the case.
On the condition that the defendants first engage in good-faith settlement negotiations, the court granted the individual defendants leave to file a motion to dismiss the complaint. Their motion was due December 6, 2021; the plaintiff’s opposition was due January 4, 2022; and the individual defendants’ reply was due January 18, 2022. The court stated that 94 Corner Cafe Corp. could not file a motion except through a licensed attorney and that no further extensions would be granted.
The court warned that failure to meet the deadlines could result in sanctions, including preventing a party from pursuing claims or defenses or dismissing claims. This order addressed representation, scheduling, and the timing of a possible default-judgment motion; it did not resolve the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.