Gonzalez v. H.K. Second Ave Restaurant Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-04271
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Gonzalez v. H.K. Second Ave Restaurant Inc.: Judge Vyskocil denied default judgment without prejudice because defendants were not properly served.
The plaintiffs' request for default judgment was denied, but they were permitted to renew it by May 1, 2023. The court's warning also placed the continuation of the action at issue if the plaintiffs failed to prosecute it.
What happened
In Gonzalez v. H.K. Second Ave Restaurant Inc., Luis Gonzalez and Julio Sanchez Espinoza asked the court for default judgment against H.K. Second Ave Restaurant Inc., Shaheen Khan, and Maha Khondoker. The court held a hearing on their second request on March 1, 2023.
The court denied the motion without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs could renew it. The court identified improper service on the defendants as a reason for the denial and set May 1, 2023, as the deadline to renew the motion.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also warned that the case would be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute on May 1, 2023, if the plaintiffs did not continue pursuing it. The court noted that the case had previously been discontinued twice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. H.K. Second Ave Restaurant Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04271
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 1, 2023
Background
Luis Gonzalez and Julio Sanchez Espinoza sued H.K. Second Ave Restaurant Inc., Shaheen Khan, and Maha Khondoker. The plaintiffs filed a second motion asking for default judgment, which is a judgment requested because a defendant has not defended the case. The court held a hearing on the motion on March 1, 2023.
Reason for the Ruling
The court stated that the defendants had not been properly served. The opinion says that this problem was acknowledged by counsel during the hearing and was also highlighted in information submitted in support of the request for attorneys' fees.
Ruling
The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment without prejudice to renewal on or before May 1, 2023. The court also stated that it had previously discontinued the case twice for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to continue pursuing the case. The court gave a final warning that, if the plaintiffs failed to prosecute the case, the action would be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute on May 1, 2023.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.