Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 9, 2023

Sarmiento v. Flagge Contracting Inc.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:22-cv-09718
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Sarmiento v. Flagge Contracting Inc., Judge Broderick entered default against defendants and referred damages to a magistrate judge for an inquest.

Who this affects

The order affects the plaintiffs, who may proceed to a damages inquiry, and the three defendants against whom default was entered: Flagge Contracting Inc., Francisco Rodriguez, and Miguel Rodriguez Monteiro.

What happened

Sarmiento v. Flagge Contracting Inc. is an action brought by Luis Alberto Espinoza Sarmiento and other plaintiffs against Flagge Contracting Inc., Francisco Rodriguez, and Miguel Rodriguez Monteiro.

The defendants were served, did not answer the complaint or file a notice of appearance, and failed to attend a June 8, 2023 hearing. The court entered default against all three defendants and referred the case to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott to determine damages.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order on June 9, 2023. The order entered default but did not decide the amount of damages.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sarmiento v. Flagge Contracting Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09718
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
June 9, 2023

Background

Luis Alberto Espinoza Sarmiento, Geovani Perez, Alfredo Perez, Jasmany Adrian Ortiz Fernandez, Milton Hernandez, Wilson Hernandez, and Cirilo Torres brought this action individually and on behalf of others described as similarly situated. The defendants are Flagge Contracting Inc., Francisco Rodriguez, and Miguel Rodriguez Monteiro.

The complaint was filed on November 15, 2022. The opinion states that the defendants were served, did not answer the complaint, and did not file a notice of appearance. The court held a hearing requiring the defendants to explain why the case should not proceed because they had not responded. None of the defendants appeared. The court also noted that a corporation must be represented by a lawyer and that no lawyer had appeared for Flagge Contracting Inc.

Ruling

The court ordered that default be entered against Flagge Contracting Inc., Francisco Rodriguez, and Miguel Rodriguez Monteiro. A default is a formal consequence of a party's failure to respond or participate as required; this order did not itself enter a damages award.

The court further ordered that the action be referred to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for an inquest into damages, meaning a proceeding to determine the amount of damages. The order does not state the amount of damages or resolve any other issue in the complaint.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.