Weekes v. Ancient Brands, LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-10218
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Weekes v. Ancient Brands, LLC, Judge Cronan ordered plaintiff to seek default judgment or explain delay while questioning whether the Americans with Disabilities Act claim is legally valid.
The plaintiff was required to file or explain the case's lack of progress and serve the defendant. Ancient Brands, LLC was required to respond to the potential default judgment and appear at the scheduled hearing.
What happened
In Weekes v. Ancient Brands, LLC, the opinion says the complaint was filed and served, but Ancient Brands had not appeared or answered by the deadline. The text identifies the plaintiff in the body as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, although the caption names Robert Weekes.
The court ordered the plaintiff to move for default judgment by February 4, 2022, or explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it. Ancient Brands was ordered to explain why default judgment should not be entered at a telephone hearing, and the court directed the parties to address whether the complaint states a valid claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Judge John P. Cronan did not enter default judgment in this order. Instead, he set deadlines for the motion and responses, required service of the order on Ancient Brands, and scheduled a hearing for March 9, 2022; the opinion separately refers to a March 2 hearing, creating a date inconsistency.
The detailed version
- Weekes v. Ancient Brands, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-10218
- John Cronan
- Jan. 21, 2022
Background
The caption identifies Robert Weekes as the plaintiff and Ancient Brands, LLC as the defendant. The body of the order states that Plaintiff Carmen Tavarez-Vargas filed the complaint on December 1, 2021, and that Ancient Brands was served on December 21, 2021. The answer was due January 11, 2022. According to the order, Ancient Brands had neither appeared nor answered as of January 21.
Orders and deadlines
The court ordered the plaintiff, by February 4, 2022, either to move for a default judgment or to show why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. A default judgment is a judgment entered when a defendant does not defend, but the court explained that a defendant's default does not automatically establish the plaintiff's right to judgment.
The plaintiff was required to serve the default-judgment motion and supporting papers on Ancient Brands by February 4 and file proof of service by February 9. Ancient Brands's opposition was due February 25, and the plaintiff's reply was due March 4. The court also ordered Ancient Brands to appear and explain at a telephone hearing on March 9, 2022, at 1:00 p.m., why default judgment should not be entered. If Ancient Brands opposed the motion before the hearing, the hearing would also serve as an initial case-management conference.
The plaintiff was separately ordered to serve Ancient Brands with a copy of the order by overnight courier within one week and file proof of that service within two business days.
Americans with Disabilities Act issue
The court directed counsel to be prepared to discuss whether the complaint alleges a valid cause of action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal law that prohibits certain disability discrimination. The order cited decisions discussing whether websites of businesses without public-facing physical retail locations qualify as places of public accommodation under that law. The court did not decide that issue in this order.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the plaintiff to pursue default judgment or explain the failure to proceed, and ordered Ancient Brands to show cause why default judgment should not be entered. The order did not grant or deny default judgment and did not resolve the merits of the disability claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.