Vasquez v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:23-cv-00355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vasquez v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp., Judge Cave ordered billing disclosures and a response before deciding plaintiffs’ default-judgment motion.
The plaintiffs and their counsel had to provide billing records and serve specified documents; the defendants had an opportunity to respond to the default-judgment motion by March 15, 2024.
What happened
In Vasquez v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp., Sofia Vasquez, Hermenegildo Candia, and Maira Naranjo asked the court to enter a default judgment against Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp., Gilberto Molina, and Angel Molina.
The court ordered the plaintiffs’ counsel to file current billing records by February 26, 2024, and to serve those records and specified case documents on the defendants by March 1, 2024. The defendants’ response to the motion was due March 15, 2024.
Judge Sarah L. Cave did not decide the default-judgment motion in this order. She stated that if the defendants did not respond or contact her chambers by the deadline, she intended to issue a recommendation about the motion and damages based only on the written submissions, without an in-court hearing.
The detailed version
- Vasquez v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-00355
- Paul Gardephe
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
Plaintiffs Sofia Vasquez, Hermenegildo Candia, and Maira Naranjo filed a motion for default judgment against Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp., doing business as Nuevo Azteca, and Gilberto Molina and Angel Molina. The Honorable Paul G. Gardephe referred the motion to United States Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for a report and recommendation.
Order
The court directed plaintiffs’ counsel to file contemporaneous billing records supporting the request for attorneys’ fees by February 26, 2024. By March 1, 2024, the plaintiffs had to serve the defendants with the billing records, the documents filed at Electronic Case Filing Nos. 20–25, 27–30, and 32–33, and this order, and then file proof of service on the docket.
The defendants’ response to the motion, if any, was due March 15, 2024. Judge Cave stated that if the defendants failed to respond or failed to contact her chambers by that deadline, she intended to issue a report and recommendation concerning the default-judgment motion and the plaintiffs’ damages based solely on the written submissions, without an in-court hearing. The order did not grant or deny the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.