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, Judge Cave extended plaintiffs’ service deadline and defendants’ response deadline, warning of possible dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The order directly affected plaintiffs Sofia Vasquez, Hermenegildo Candia, and Maira Naranjo by extending their service deadline and warning of a possible dismissal recommendation. It affected defendants Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp. d/b/a Nuevo Azteca, Gilberto Molina, and Angel Molina by extending their deadline to respond to the motion for default judgment.
What happened
In Vasquez v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp., the plaintiffs had been ordered to file billing records supporting their request for attorneys’ fees, serve specified documents on the defendants, and file proof of service. They filed the billing records but did not file proof that they had served the defendants.
The court gave the plaintiffs a one-time extension until March 8, 2024, to serve the required documents and file proof of service. It warned that failing to meet that deadline would lead to a recommendation to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. The court also extended the defendants’ deadline to respond to the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment until March 22, 2024.
Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the order on March 4, 2024. The order did not decide the motion for default judgment or dismiss the case; it set deadlines and warned of a possible future dismissal recommendation. If the defendants did not respond or contact the court by the deadline, Judge Cave stated that she intended to issue a report and recommendation about the motion and damages based only on the written submissions.
The detailed version
- Vasquez v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-00355
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 4, 2024
Background
On February 21, 2024, the court ordered Sofia Vasquez, Hermenegildo Candia, and Maira Naranjo to file contemporaneous billing records supporting their request for attorneys’ fees by February 26, 2024. The plaintiffs also had to serve the defendants with specified filings, the February 21 order, and the billing records, then file proof of service by March 1, 2024.
The plaintiffs filed the billing records on February 26, 2024, but did not file proof that they had served the defendants with the required documents. The order therefore states that the plaintiffs did not comply with the February 21 order.
Court’s Action
As a one-time courtesy, the court extended the plaintiffs’ deadline to March 8, 2024. By that date, they had to serve the defendants with the specified documents, including the billing records and the March 4 order, and file proof of service.
The court warned that failure to comply by March 8 would result in a recommendation to Judge Paul G. Gardephe to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Because of the plaintiffs’ delay, the court also extended the defendants’ deadline to respond to the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment to March 22, 2024. The court stated that if the defendants did not respond to the motion or contact the judge’s chambers by that deadline, it intended to issue a report and recommendation concerning the motion and the plaintiffs’ damages based solely on the written submissions, without an in-court hearing.
Disposition
Judge Sarah L. Cave extended the plaintiffs’ service and proof-of-service deadline and extended the defendants’ response deadline. The order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment, and it did not dismiss the action. It warned of a possible future recommendation for dismissal if the plaintiffs failed to comply with the extended deadline.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.