De La Cruz v. MDBH Mobile 3 Inc.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:22-cv-03053
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
De La Cruz v. MDBH Mobile 3, Judge Netburn warned defendants of possible default judgment and directed plaintiffs to seek it if counsel does not appear.
The defendants, who the court stated were in default and warned could face a default judgment; the plaintiffs, who were directed to file a motion if counsel did not appear; and defense counsel Kevin Johnson, whom the court had previously sanctioned and warned of additional sanctions.
What happened
In De La Cruz v. MDBH Mobile 3 Inc., defense lawyer Kevin Johnson had not participated in the case since February 26, 2024. The court said his abandonment placed the defendants in default.
The court warned that a default judgment for the money damages sought could be entered unless the defendants appeared through counsel. It sent the order to addresses it could locate for the defendants to avoid further prejudice.
Judge Sarah Netburn directed the plaintiffs to file a motion seeking findings on both liability and damages if the defendants did not appear through counsel by May 31, 2024. The court did not enter a default judgment in this order.
The detailed version
- De La Cruz v. MDBH Mobile 3 Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03053
- Sarah Netburn
- May 3, 2024
Background
Defense counsel Kevin Johnson had apparently stopped participating in the case. The court stated that he had not appeared or otherwise engaged in the litigation since February 26, 2024. On March 18, 2024, the court sanctioned him for missing a court appearance and ignoring multiple filing deadlines. He also failed to submit required materials for an upcoming settlement conference and did not confirm that he and his clients would attend. The court canceled the May 2, 2024 settlement conference.
The court had ordered Mr. Johnson to explain by April 30, 2024, why it should not enter a default against the defendants and impose additional sanctions against him. He had not responded by the date of this order.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court stated that the defendants were in default because of Mr. Johnson’s abandonment. To avoid further prejudice, it sent the order to available addresses for the defendants. The court warned that a default judgment could be entered against them for the money damages sought if they did not appear through counsel.
The court directed the plaintiffs to file a motion for default judgment seeking findings on both liability and damages if the defendants did not appear through counsel by May 31, 2024. This order did not itself enter a default judgment or decide the amount of damages.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.