Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Feb. 29, 2024

Laureano v. Art of Szechuan Inc.

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:21-cv-08340
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureADA / Disability
In one sentence

Laureano v. Art of Szechuan: Judge Woods noted defendants’ absence and set a deadline for Laureano’s possible default-judgment application.

Who this affects

John Laureano and defendants Art of Szechuan Inc. and J.F.K. Corporation; the order also sets requirements for any future request for default judgment or injunctive relief.

What happened

In Laureano v. Art of Szechuan Inc., the court held an initial pretrial conference after sixteen adjournments. Neither defendant nor a representative appeared. The lawsuit had been filed in 2021.

Judge Woods said that, unless Laureano voluntarily dismisses the case, Laureano should file by March 15, 2024, an application asking why default judgment should not be granted. The application must follow the court’s rules and include required affidavits and a legal memorandum.

Judge Woods also said that any request for an injunction must show that the requested relief meets the Americans with Disabilities Act’s requirement that it be readily achievable. The order did not grant default judgment or decide the case’s underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Laureano v. Art of Szechuan Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08340
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Feb. 29, 2024

Background

John Laureano sued Art of Szechuan Inc., doing business as China Jade Szechuan Chili House, and J.F.K. Corporation. The complaint was filed on October 8, 2021. The court held an initial pretrial conference on February 29, 2024, after sixteen prior adjournments. Neither defendant, nor any representative of either defendant, appeared.

Order

The court stated that, unless the case is voluntarily dismissed, Laureano is expected to file by March 15, 2024, an application requesting an order to show cause for why default judgment should not be granted. Default judgment is a judgment entered because a party did not respond or appear as required; this order did not enter that judgment. The court required any application to comply fully with its Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, including the procedures in Attachment A. The court gave affidavits and a memorandum of law as examples of materials the application must include.

Potential Injunctive Relief

The court stated that, if Laureano seeks an injunction, he must prove that the requested relief is consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act’s requirement that injunctions ordered under the statute be “readily achievable.” The court cited a prior related decision for that point. The order did not decide whether Laureano is entitled to an injunction, default judgment, or relief on the underlying claims.

Effect of the Order

The order sets expectations and a filing deadline for a possible default-judgment application. It does not state that the application was filed, does not grant or deny such an application, and does not resolve the merits of the lawsuit.

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.