Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 15, 2024

Bartlett v. J. Noah B.V.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:23-cv-10345
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Bartlett v. J. Noah B.V., Judge Furman denied Bartlett’s default-entry motion and indefinitely postponed the initial conference.

Who this affects

The order affected plaintiff Taurus Bartlett and defendants J. Noah B.V. and Jozef Wanno. It denied Bartlett’s request for entry of default, required Bartlett to explain the delayed discovery of service on J. Noah B.V., and postponed the initial pretrial conference.

What happened

In Taurus Bartlett, professionally known as “Polo G,” v. J. Noah B.V. and Jozef Wanno, Bartlett’s lawyers reported on efforts to serve the defendants and asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference.

The lawyers said J. Noah B.V. had been served in the Netherlands on January 24, 2024, but had not filed an answer, a motion, or any other appearance. They also said service documents for Jozef Wanno had apparently been lost by authorities in the Netherlands and that Bartlett planned to seek permission for another method of service.

Judge Jesse Furman ordered Bartlett to explain how he discovered the January service only months later, denied the request for a clerk’s certificate of default because it was incorrectly filed and premature, and postponed the initial pretrial conference indefinitely. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate two docket entries.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bartlett v. J. Noah B.V. · No. 1:23-cv-10345
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Aug. 15, 2024

Background

Plaintiff Taurus Bartlett, professionally known as “Polo G,” filed a status update about service of process and requested postponement of the initial pretrial conference. The conference had been scheduled for August 28, 2024, along with deadlines for filing a joint letter and a case-management and scheduling plan.

Bartlett’s counsel reported that defendants J. Noah B.V. and Jozef Wanno are based in the Netherlands and had refused to accept service. Counsel retained ABC Legal Services, Inc. to serve them in the Netherlands under the Hague Convention.

According to counsel, ABC Legal provided a certificate stating that J. Noah B.V. had been served on January 24, 2024. Because J. Noah B.V. had not answered, filed a motion under Rule 12, or otherwise appeared, counsel said Bartlett had applied for a clerk’s certificate of default and intended to seek a default judgment afterward.

As to Jozef Wanno, counsel reported that Dutch authorities had apparently lost the service documents. ABC Legal had sent another set of documents and asked the authorities to complete service. Counsel also said Bartlett intended to ask the court to authorize an alternative method of service on Wanno.

Court’s Actions

Judge Furman ordered Bartlett to file, by August 23, 2024, a letter explaining how and why Bartlett discovered only then—about seven months after the alleged service—that the process server had served J. Noah B.V. The court noted that the same process server had been retained since at least December 20, 2023, and that Bartlett had filed at least three later letters stating that neither defendant had been served.

The court further found that Bartlett appeared to have filed the request for a clerk’s certificate of default as a “motion for entry of default” in error. That motion, docket entry 21, was DENIED as incorrectly filed and premature.

The initial pretrial conference scheduled for August 28, 2024, was ADJOURNED indefinitely. The Clerk was directed to terminate docket entries 21 and 23.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.