Mejia v. Cover FX Skin Care Limited
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-02620
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mejia v. Cover FX, Judge Vyskocil ordered a deadline for seeking default judgment after the defendant missed response deadlines.
Jose Mejia and the putative group of similarly situated plaintiffs, as well as Cover FX Skin Care Limited. The order directly required any motion for default judgment to be filed by June 30, 2022.
What happened
Mejia v. Cover FX Skin Care Limited concerns a lawsuit brought by Jose Mejia individually and for others similarly situated. The court noted that the defendant was served with the summons and complaint twice and did not respond by either listed deadline.
The first summons set a response deadline of May 3, 2022. A later summons set a response deadline of May 27, 2022. The docket contained no response from the defendant by either date.
The court ordered that any request for a default judgment—a judgment sought because a defendant has not responded—must be filed by June 30, 2022. Judge Vyskocil warned that failing to meet that deadline may lead to dismissal for failure to pursue the case.
The detailed version
- Mejia v. Cover FX Skin Care Limited · No. 1:22-cv-02620
- Vyskocil
- May 31, 2022
Background
Jose Mejia filed this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion states that the action was initiated by a filing dated March 30, 2022. An affidavit stating that the summons and complaint had been served was filed on April 25, 2022. According to that summons, Cover FX Skin Care Limited's response was due May 3, 2022, but no response was filed.
A second affidavit of service was filed on May 16, 2022. According to the later summons, the defendant's response was due May 27, 2022. No response was filed by that date either.
Order
The court ordered that any motion for entry of a default judgment must be filed by June 30, 2022. A default judgment is a judgment requested because a party has failed to respond to the case. The court directed Mejia to follow the procedures for default judgments in the judge's individual rules and practices for civil cases.
The court did not enter a default judgment in this order. It stated that failure to seek a default judgment by June 30, 2022, may result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition
The court set a deadline for a possible motion for default judgment and warned of a possible future dismissal. The order did not otherwise decide the parties' underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.