Sojka v. Mudge
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-03741
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sojka v. Mudge, Judge Torres granted Mudge’s military-service stay request, pausing the action until April 7, 2024.
The order affects the proceedings involving plaintiff Julian Sojka, defendants Sterling Mudge and the United States of America, and the court's handling of the case through April 7, 2024.
What happened
In Sojka v. Mudge, Defendant Sterling Mudge asked the court to pause the case under a federal law protecting servicemembers. The case also names Julian Sojka as plaintiff and the United States of America as a defendant.
The court explained that the law requires a servicemember to provide information about how military duties affect the ability to appear, along with a statement from the commanding officer. The court found that Mudge’s submission met those requirements.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the motion and stayed the action until April 7, 2024. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and stay the case.
The detailed version
- Sojka v. Mudge · No. 1:23-cv-03741
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 5, 2024
Background
Defendant Sterling Mudge moved to stay, or pause, the proceedings under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50 U.S.C. § 3932. The case names Julian Sojka as plaintiff and Sterling Mudge and the United States of America as defendants.
Legal Standard
The court explained that the SCRA allows a servicemember who is in military service and has notice of an action to request a stay of at least 90 days. The application must include a communication describing how current military duties materially affect the servicemember’s ability to appear and identifying when the servicemember will be available. It must also include a communication from the commanding officer stating that the military duties prevent the servicemember from appearing and that military leave is not authorized at that time. When those requirements are met, the stay is mandatory.
Ruling
The court determined that Mudge’s submission fulfilled the SCRA’s requirements. It therefore granted the motion to stay and stayed the action until April 7, 2024. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 25 and stay the case. The order addressed the request to pause the proceedings and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.