Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC v. Pupovic
- Clarke
- 7:24-cv-08373
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Diamond Tucker St. Property v. Pupovic, Judge Clarke ordered defendants to respond to DTS’s request to stay the action; she did not rule on the stay.
Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC and the defendants in the New York action were affected by the order requiring the defendants to respond to the requested stay. The order did not decide whether the case would be stayed.
What happened
Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC asked the Southern District of New York to pause its case against Pupovic and other defendants. DTS said a related motion was pending in the District of Connecticut.
DTS argued that the Connecticut motion could invalidate a purported default judgment because, according to DTS, service of process was improper and the Connecticut court lacked personal jurisdiction. DTS said the related ruling could affect an affirmative defense in the New York case and promote efficient use of judicial resources.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke did not grant or deny the requested stay in this order. Instead, she directed the defendants to respond to DTS’s request by April 2, 2025.
The detailed version
- Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC v. Pupovic · No. 7:24-cv-08373
- Clarke
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background
Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC (DTS), through its attorney, asked the Southern District of New York to stay, or pause, the entire action. The request concerned a related proceeding in the District of Connecticut, identified as No. 3:24-cv-01969. The opinion states that the related proceeding involved a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), which permits a party to seek relief from a judgment that is legally void.
DTS’s Position
DTS argued that the related motion seeks to invalidate a purported default judgment entered in a Connecticut state-court case against DTS and other defendants. According to DTS’s motion, the state court lacked personal jurisdiction because the plaintiffs allegedly used an improper provision of Connecticut law to serve process. DTS argued that the purported judgment was therefore void. DTS also asserted that defendants in the New York case had raised an affirmative defense based, at least in part, on that judgment, so the Connecticut ruling could directly affect the New York action.
Order
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke did not decide whether to stay the action. The order directed the defendants to file a response to DTS’s request by April 2, 2025. The provided opinion text therefore contains no ruling granting or denying the stay.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.