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 Corp., Judge Cave gave plaintiffs one final deadline before denying their default-judgment motion and recommending dismissal.
The order directly affected the plaintiffs, who received a final service deadline and warning, and the defendants, whose response deadline was extended to April 4, 2024.
What happened
In Vasquez v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp., the plaintiffs asked for a judgment because the defendants had not responded. The court had ordered the plaintiffs to serve documents on the defendants and file proof of service.
The plaintiffs’ filing showed that they mailed many required documents, but it did not show that they served the March 11 order. The court set March 21, 2024, as a final deadline to serve that order and the new order and file proof of service. It also extended the defendants’ response deadline to April 4, 2024.
Judge Sarah L. Cave warned that another failure to comply would result in denial of the default-judgment motion and a recommendation to Judge Gardephe to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the default-judgment motion or damages.
The detailed version
- Vasquez v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-00355
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 19, 2024
Background
Sofia Vasquez, Hermenegildo Candia, and Maira Naranjo moved for a default judgment against Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp. doing business as Nuevo Azteca, Gilberto Molina, and Angel Molina. A default judgment is a judgment entered when a party fails to respond or otherwise defend. Judge Paul G. Gardephe referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for a report and recommendation.
Failure to Follow Service Orders
The court had ordered the plaintiffs to serve specified documents on the defendants and file proof of service by March 1, 2024. After the plaintiffs did not comply, the court extended the deadline to March 8 and then issued a final extension requiring compliance by March 18. The March 11 order required service of documents filed at specified docket entries, as well as the March 11 order itself.
On March 18, the plaintiffs’ counsel filed an affidavit of service. The court inferred that the affidavit showed service of the other listed documents, but it did not show service of the March 11 order. Because that order notified the defendants of their deadline to respond to the default-judgment motion, the court found the omission significant.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to serve the March 11 order and the March 19 order on the defendants by March 21, 2024, and to file proof of service. It gave a final warning 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 extended the defendants’ deadline to respond to the motion to April 4, 2024. If the defendants did not respond or contact the court by that date, Judge Cave stated that she intended to issue a report and recommendation about the motion and the plaintiffs’ damages based only on the written submissions, without an in-court hearing. The order did not grant or deny the default-judgment motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.