XYZ Corp. v. Individuals
XYZ Corp. v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-01962
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In XYZ Corp. v. Individuals, Judge Schofield granted in part and denied in part an extension request, setting a Turkish-Defendant deadline and moving the conference.
The plaintiff and the Turkish Defendants were directly affected by the new October 18, 2024 deadline. The other Defendants remained subject to their existing default-judgment deadlines, and the parties were affected by the rescheduled initial pre-trial conference.
What happened
In XYZ Corp. v. Individuals, the plaintiff asked for more time to seek default judgment against defendants who had not responded to the complaint. The request concerned service on nine Turkish Defendants and the status of service on other defendants.
The court granted the request in part and denied it in part. It required the plaintiff to move for default judgment against the Turkish Defendants by October 18, 2024, and moved the initial pre-trial conference to October 30, 2024, at 4:20 p.m. The deadlines for seeking default judgment against the other Defendants did not change.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered the order on June 11, 2024. The ruling addressed scheduling and the timing of possible default-judgment motions; it did not decide whether any defendant was liable for copyright infringement.
The detailed version
- XYZ Corp. v. Individuals · No. 1:24-cv-01962
- Lorna Schofield
- June 11, 2024
Background
The plaintiff, represented by counsel, sought an extension of the deadline to move for default judgment against defendants who had not answered or otherwise responded to the complaint. The underlying action is described as a copyright-infringement case.
The plaintiff stated that it had asked the Turkish Central Authority to serve process on nine Defendants residing in Turkey. According to the plaintiff, the authority confirmed service on six of them but provided only a letter rather than a certificate of service. The plaintiff also stated that it was trying to determine the status of service on the other three Turkish Defendants. The plaintiff argued that, under Article 15 of the Hague Convention for Service of Process, it might not be able to seek default judgment against the relevant Turkish Defendants until six months after the documents were transmitted to the Turkish Central Authority.
Ruling
The court's order states: “Application GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.” The court directed the plaintiff to move for default judgment against the Turkish Defendants no later than October 18, 2024. It adjourned the initial pre-trial conference from July 3, 2024, to October 30, 2024, at 4:20 p.m. The deadlines for moving for default judgment against the other Defendants remained unchanged.
What the Order Decided
This was a scheduling and case-management ruling. It did not determine whether the plaintiff's copyright-infringement claims were valid, whether any defendant was liable, or whether default judgment should ultimately be entered.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.