Juscinska v. 60 Up, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-01549
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Juscinska v. 60 Up, LLC, Judge Schofield granted an adjournment and directed the plaintiff to seek default against the defendants.
The plaintiff, Natalia Juscinska, and the defendants in the case were affected by the postponed conference and the direction concerning a default motion.
What happened
In Juscinska v. 60 Up, LLC, the plaintiff asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference because the defendants had not appeared and their deadline to respond had passed.
The court granted the request, postponed the May 25, 2022, conference indefinitely, and directed the plaintiff to file a motion for default. The court also directed the clerk to close the motion listed at Docket No. 14.
Judge Lorna Schofield issued this scheduling order. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Juscinska v. 60 Up, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01549
- Lorna Schofield
- May 18, 2022
Background
The plaintiff asked the court to postpone an initial pretrial conference scheduled for May 25, 2022. The request stated that the defendants had not appeared and that the time for them to answer or otherwise respond had expired. The plaintiff sought time to file a motion for default, meaning a request for judgment based on a party’s failure to appear or respond.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It postponed the initial pretrial conference indefinitely, directed the plaintiff to move for default under Attachment A of the court’s Individual Rules, and directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket No. 14.
Effect of the Order
This was a procedural scheduling order. The court did not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s claims or enter default judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.