Tavarez-Vargas v. Dancing Deer Baking Company, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-10606
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tavarez-Vargas v. Dancing Deer, Judge Woods ordered a prompt default-judgment application or decision letter and warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
Carmen Tavarez-Vargas was required to either pursue default judgment by filing the specified application or notify the court that she would not pursue it by July 13, 2022. The defendant was not directly ordered to take action in this order.
What happened
Tavarez-Vargas v. Dancing Deer Baking Company, Inc. is an action brought by Carmen Tavarez-Vargas individually and on behalf of others described as similarly situated. The court had expected her to seek an order requiring the defendant to explain why default judgment should not be entered.
Tavarez-Vargas did not file that application by the July 7 deadline the court had previously set. The court ordered her, by July 13, either to file the default-judgment application or to send a letter stating that she would not pursue default judgment.
Judge Gregory H. Woods warned that failing to comply with the order could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The order did not enter default judgment or dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Tavarez-Vargas v. Dancing Deer Baking Company, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-10606
- Gregory Woods
- July 8, 2022
Background
Carmen Tavarez-Vargas brought the action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On June 9, 2022, the court stated that it expected Tavarez-Vargas to file an application for an order to show cause explaining why default judgment should not be entered. The court set July 7, 2022, as the deadline for that filing.
Court’s Action
Tavarez-Vargas did not file the application by July 7. The court ordered that, if she intended to pursue default judgment, she file the application promptly and no later than July 13, 2022. If she no longer intended to pursue default judgment, the court ordered her to file a letter informing the court of that decision by the same date.
Warning and Disposition
The court warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with a court order, treated as a failure to prosecute. This order set a deadline and issued a warning; it did not enter default judgment and did not dismiss the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.