Streets v. Mangena
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-10648
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Streets v. Mangena, Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended striking Mangena’s answer and entering a default certificate after repeated failures to participate and obey court orders.
Daniel Mangena is directly affected because the recommendation would strike his answer and lead to a certificate of default. The recommendation also concerns Streets and may affect the next steps against Mangena and Dreamer HQ Inc.
What happened
In Streets v. Mangena, Theodosia Billie Streets brought claims including fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. After Mangena’s lawyer withdrew, Mangena did not appear at a telephone conference, provide required disclosures, or respond to Streets’s discovery requests and court orders.
The report recommends striking Mangena’s answer and directing the clerk to enter a certificate of default against him as a sanction. This is a recommendation, not the final entry of default judgment. The court had already entered a certificate of default against Dreamer HQ Inc.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron made the recommendation for District Judge Analisa Torres. The parties had 14 days after service to object; if Judge Torres adopts the recommendation, Streets may then seek a default judgment.
The detailed version
- Streets v. Mangena · No. 1:23-cv-10648
- Analisa Torres
- Oct. 18, 2024
Background
Theodosia Billie Streets sued Daniel Mangena, also known as Lindani Mangena, Dreamer HQ Inc., Financial Freedom in a Box, also known as Financial Abundance Unleashed, and POTB Enterprises, LLC. The complaint asserted claims for fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Streets voluntarily dismissed the claims against POTB. The court dismissed the complaint against Financial Freedom in a Box without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The opinion states that a certificate of default had already been entered against Dreamer HQ after that company failed to appear through counsel.
An attorney initially appeared for Mangena and Dreamer HQ and filed an answer. The court later granted the attorney’s motions to withdraw and gave Mangena and Dreamer HQ time to obtain new counsel. The court reminded Mangena that he could appear without a lawyer but still had to follow court orders and deadlines. After Mangena failed to appear at a September 30, 2024 telephone conference, the court ordered him to serve initial disclosures and respond to Streets’s document requests by October 14, 2024. Streets reported that Mangena did not comply.
Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended striking Mangena’s answer and directing the Clerk of Court to enter a certificate of default against Mangena. The recommendation relied on Rules 16 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permit sanctions—including striking pleadings or entering default—when a party fails to participate in the case, attend required conferences, comply with court orders, or meet discovery obligations.
The report concluded that Mangena repeatedly failed to participate in the litigation, comply with the August 21 and September 30 orders, exchange discovery, and appear at the telephone conference. It found that further orders or lesser sanctions would not be effective and characterized the repeated noncompliance as a willful abandonment of his defense. The report did not itself enter a default judgment against Mangena; it recommended the steps that would allow Streets to seek one.
Procedure and Effect
The parties had 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation to file written objections. District Judge Analisa Torres would decide whether to adopt the recommendation. The notice states that, if Judge Torres adopts it, Streets may move for a default judgment against Mangena under Rule 55(b)(2), and may also move for a default judgment against Dreamer HQ because a certificate of default had already been entered against that company. Failure to object within the stated period would waive objections and preclude appellate review, according to the notice.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.