Galindo v. Yummy Foods Deli Corp.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:21-cv-00045
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Galindo v. Yummy Foods Deli Corp., Judge Cave ordered service of the default-judgment motion and gave defendants time to respond.
Felipe Galindo and defendants Yummy Foods Deli Corp., Fouad Hamoud Hadwan, and Tawfiq Hadwan.
What happened
In Galindo v. Yummy Foods Deli Corp., Felipe Galindo moved for default judgment against Yummy Foods Deli Corp., Fouad Hamoud Hadwan, and Tawfiq Hadwan. The motion had been referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for a recommendation to the district judge.
Judge Cave ordered Galindo to serve each defendant with the motion, its supporting materials, and the order by August 10, 2023, and to file proof of service.
The defendants were given two weeks after service to respond. Judge Cave did not decide the motion; she stated that she intended to issue a recommendation about the motion and damages based only on Galindo’s written submissions if the defendants did not respond or contact her chambers.
The detailed version
- Galindo v. Yummy Foods Deli Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-00045
- Sarah Cave
- Aug. 4, 2023
Background
Felipe Galindo filed a motion for default judgment against Yummy Foods Deli Corp., Fouad Hamoud Hadwan, and Tawfiq Hadwan. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for a report and recommendation.
Order
The court ordered Galindo to serve each defendant by August 10, 2023, with copies of the motion, all documents and exhibits supporting it, and the order itself. Galindo also had to file proof of service on the docket.
The defendants were required to file any response within two weeks after service. If they failed to respond or failed to contact Judge Cave’s chambers by the response deadline, she stated that she intended to issue a report and recommendation concerning the motion and Galindo’s damages based solely on the written submissions, without an in-court hearing.
Disposition
The order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment. It set service and response requirements and described the next step the court intended to take if the defendants did not respond.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.