Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 28, 2022

Ortega v. Made With Love Wellness, Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:22-cv-00929
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ortega v. Made With Love Wellness, Inc., Judge Furman set deadlines and a hearing for possible default judgment; no default judgment was entered.

Who this affects

Juan Ortega and Made With Love Wellness, Inc.; the order primarily set obligations and deadlines for the defendant and required Ortega to provide additional service.

What happened

Ortega filed a complaint against Made With Love Wellness, Inc., and the opinion says the defendant was served but had not answered or appeared.

The court set April 11, 2022, as the deadline for any motion for default judgment and April 18, 2022, for the defendant’s opposition. If a motion was filed, the defendant had to appear on May 2, 2022, and explain why default judgment should not be entered.

Judge Jesse M. Furman also required Ortega to serve the order and any default-judgment papers on the defendant and file proof of service. The order scheduled briefing and a hearing; it did not enter default judgment.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ortega v. Made With Love Wellness, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00929
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Mar. 28, 2022

Background

The opinion states that Juan Ortega filed the complaint on February 2, 2022. Made With Love Wellness, Inc. was served on February 28, 2022, and proof of service was filed. The defendant had not answered the complaint or otherwise appeared by the date of the order.

Court’s Orders

The court ordered that any motion for default judgment be filed by April 11, 2022, under Judge Furman’s individual rules. The defendant’s opposition, if any, was due April 18, 2022. The court cautioned that a corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel and that a default judgment may be entered against a corporation that repeatedly fails to appear through counsel.

If Ortega filed a motion for default judgment, the court ordered the defendant to appear on May 2, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. and show cause—explain why—the court should not grant default judgment. Ortega also had to file a proposed default-judgment order for the Clerk’s approval by the Thursday before the hearing.

If the defendant appeared, opposed the motion, or requested additional time to respond to the complaint, the scheduled conference would instead be treated as the initial pretrial conference. The parties would then have to follow the procedures in the court’s February 3, 2022, order, including submitting a joint letter and proposed case-management plan.

The court separately ordered Ortega to serve the defendant with this order within one business day and, if filed, the default-judgment motion and supporting papers within one business day after filing. Ortega had to file proof of each service within two business days.

Disposition and Classification

This was a procedural scheduling order. It set deadlines and a show-cause hearing concerning a possible default judgment; it did not grant or deny a default-judgment motion and did not enter default judgment. Judge Jesse M. Furman signed the order.

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.