Vasquez v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:23-cv-00355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Vasquez v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca, Judge Cave extended plaintiffs’ service deadline and warned that missing it would deny default judgment and prompt a dismissal recommendation.
The order directly affected Sofia Vasquez, Hermenegildo Candia, and Maira Naranjo by imposing a final service deadline, and it affected Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp. d/b/a Nuevo Azteca, Gilberto Molina, and Angel Molina by extending their response deadline.
What happened
In Vasquez v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp., the plaintiffs asked for a default judgment against the defendants. The court had ordered the plaintiffs to serve specified documents, including billing records and their motion, and to file proof of service.
The plaintiffs missed the original deadline and a later extended deadline for filing proof of service. The court gave them a final extension to March 18, 2024, warning that another failure would result in denial of the default-judgment motion and a recommendation to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.
Judge Cave also extended the defendants’ response deadline to April 1, 2024. If the defendants did not respond or contact the court by then, Judge Cave stated that she intended to make a recommendation about the motion and damages based only on the written submissions, without a hearing.
The detailed version
- Vasquez v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-00355
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 11, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment. The opinion states that Judge Paul G. Gardephe referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for a report and recommendation.
The court had ordered the plaintiffs to file contemporaneous billing records supporting their request for attorneys’ fees and to serve the defendants with specified filings, the court’s February 21, 2024 order, and proof of service. The plaintiffs filed the billing records but did not file proof that they had served the required materials by the deadline.
The court later extended the deadline to March 8, 2024. The plaintiffs again did not file proof of service by that deadline. The court explained that proper service was required before it could analyze the default-judgment motion and make a report and recommendation.
Order
The court gave the plaintiffs a final extension to March 18, 2024, to serve the required documents on the defendants and file proof of service. It expressly warned that failure to meet that deadline would result in denial of the default-judgment motion and a recommendation to Judge Gardephe to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute.
The court also extended the defendants’ deadline to respond to the motion to April 1, 2024. If the defendants failed to respond or failed to contact Judge Cave’s chambers by that date, she stated that she 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.
What the Order Decided
The order did not decide whether the plaintiffs were entitled to default judgment or determine their damages. It set service and response deadlines and warned of possible future rulings if the plaintiffs did not comply. The classification is procedural because the order concerns service, deadlines, and possible dismissal for failure to prosecute rather than the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.