Tavarez v. RB Health LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-00259
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tavarez v. RB Health, Judge Vyskocil set a deadline for seeking default judgment and warned that the case could be dismissed for inactivity.
The order affects Victoriano Tavarez and RB Health (US) LLC. Tavarez was given a deadline to seek default judgment, and the action could be dismissed if he did not do so.
What happened
In Tavarez v. RB Health (US) LLC, Victoriano Tavarez sued the company individually and on behalf of similarly situated people. The summons stated that the defendant’s response was due March 11, 2022, but no response was filed.
The court also noted that Tavarez had not pursued the case after filing it. It ordered that any request for a default judgment be filed by May 12, 2022, following the court’s procedures.
Judge Vyskocil warned that failing to seek default judgment by that date might lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The order did not decide the underlying claims or enter a default judgment.
The detailed version
- Tavarez v. RB Health LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00259
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 12, 2022
Background
Victoriano Tavarez filed this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion states that the complaint was filed on January 1, 2022, and that proof of service of the summons and complaint was filed on March 9, 2022. The summons stated that RB Health (US) LLC’s response was due March 11, 2022.
No response was filed, and the court stated that Tavarez had not prosecuted the case to that point.
Order
The court ordered that any motion for entry of a default judgment be filed by May 12, 2022. It directed Tavarez to follow the procedures for default judgments in the court’s Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases.
The court warned that failure to move for default judgment by the deadline might result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order set a deadline and warning; it did not enter default judgment, dismiss the action, or decide the merits of the claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.