Sarmiento v. Flagge Contracting Inc.

S.D. New York

Sarmiento v. Flagge Contracting Inc.

DecidedJune 9, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-09718

StatusUnknown

This text of Sarmiento v. Flagge Contracting Inc. (Sarmiento v. Flagge Contracting Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sarmiento v. Flagge Contracting Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------X : LUIS ALBERTO ESPINOZA SARMIENTO, : GEOVANI PEREZ, ALFREDO PEREZ, : JASMANY ADRIAN ORTIZ FERNANDEZ, : MILTON HERNANDEZ, WILSON : 22-CV-9718 (VSB) HERNANDEZ, and CIRILO TORRES, : individually and on behalf of all others : ORDER similarly situated, : : Plaintiffs, : : -against- : : FLAGGE CONTRACTING INC., : FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ and MIGUEL : RODRIGUEZ MONTEIRO, as individuals, : : Defendants. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: This action having been commenced on November 15, 2022 by the filing of the Complaint, (Doc. 1), and Defendants Flagge Contracting Inc., Francisco Rodriguez, and Miguel Rodriguez Monteiro having been served on November 29, 20221 (see Docs. 9, 10), and the Defendants not having answered the Complaint and the time for answering the Complaint having expired, I held an Order to Show Cause hearing in this action. The Order to Show Cause hearing was held on June 8, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. Defendants failed to appear at that hearing. To date, no notice of appearance for Defendants has been filed. It being necessary for a corporate defendant to be represented by counsel, see Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y., 443 F.3d 180, 192 (2d Cir. 2006), and none having appeared on behalf

1 Flagge Contracting Inc. was also served through the Office of the Secretary of State of New York State on November 30, 2023. (Doc. 9.) of Defendant Flagge Contracting Inc., proof of service upon Defendants having been duly filed (Docs. 9, 10, 32, 40, 42, 44), Defendants not having answered the Complaint, and the time for Defendants to answer or move with respect to the Complaint having expired, it is hereby: ORDERED that a default is entered against Flagge Contracting Inc., Francisco Rodriguez, and Miguel Rodriguez Monteiro. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be referred to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for an inquest into damages. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 9, 2023 New York, New York J . Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------X : LUIS ALBERTO ESPINOZA SARMIENTO, : GEOVANI PEREZ, ALFREDO PEREZ, : JASMANY ADRIAN ORTIZ FERNANDEZ, : MILTON HERNANDEZ, WILSON : 22-CV-9718 (VSB) HERNANDEZ, and CIRILO TORRES, : individually and on behalf of all others : ORDER similarly situated, : : Plaintiffs, : : -against- : : FLAGGE CONTRACTING INC., : FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ and MIGUEL : RODRIGUEZ MONTEIRO, as individuals, : : Defendants. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: This action having been commenced on November 15, 2022 by the filing of the Complaint, (Doc. 1), and Defendants Flagge Contracting Inc., Francisco Rodriguez, and Miguel Rodriguez Monteiro having been served on November 29, 20221 (see Docs. 9, 10), and the Defendants not having answered the Complaint and the time for answering the Complaint having expired, I held an Order to Show Cause hearing in this action. The Order to Show Cause hearing was held on June 8, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. Defendants failed to appear at that hearing. To date, no notice of appearance for Defendants has been filed. It being necessary for a corporate defendant to be represented by counsel, see Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y., 443 F.3d 180, 192 (2d Cir. 2006), and none having appeared on behalf

1 Flagge Contracting Inc. was also served through the Office of the Secretary of State of New York State on November 30, 2023. (Doc. 9.) of Defendant Flagge Contracting Inc., proof of service upon Defendants having been duly filed (Docs. 9, 10, 32, 40, 42, 44), Defendants not having answered the Complaint, and the time for Defendants to answer or move with respect to the Complaint having expired, it is hereby: ORDERED that a default is entered against Flagge Contracting Inc., Francisco Rodriguez, and Miguel Rodriguez Monteiro. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be referred to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for an inquest into damages. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 9, 2023 New York, New York J . Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sarmiento v. Flagge Contracting Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarmiento-v-flagge-contracting-inc-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack