Tarr v. Clothing Arts, Ltd.
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-09319
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Tarr v. Clothing Arts default judgment awards Tarr all claims; Judge Rearden reserved relief, costs, interest, and fees for later proceedings.
Ellen Elizabeth Tarr and Clothing Arts, Ltd.; the judgment establishes liability on all claims, while the amount and form of certain relief remain for later proceedings.
What happened
In Tarr v. Clothing Arts, Ltd., Ellen Elizabeth Tarr sued Clothing Arts, Ltd. under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City and State human-rights laws. The company was served but did not file a proper answer or appear through a licensed lawyer. Its owner submitted letters without a lawyer, but a corporation cannot represent itself in federal court.
The Clerk entered the company’s default after the deadline to answer passed. Tarr then requested a default judgment. The company did not oppose that request or respond to the court’s later order asking why judgment should not be entered.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden entered a default judgment for Tarr on all claims. The court reserved injunctive and compensatory relief for an inquest, and costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees for a later submission. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein for the inquest.
The detailed version
- Tarr v. Clothing Arts, Ltd. · No. 1:23-cv-09319
- Rearden
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background
Ellen Elizabeth Tarr brought this action against Clothing Arts, Ltd. under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The opinion states that Tarr initiated the action on October 23, 2023, and that Clothing Arts was served on November 7, 2023. Its answer was due on November 28, 2023.
Clothing Arts’ owner, Adam Rapp, submitted two letters without a lawyer. The court explained that a corporation may appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney. Because the company did not file an answer or otherwise appear through counsel, the court treated it as having failed to respond properly.
Default and Motion
At Tarr’s request, the Clerk of Court issued a certificate of default on February 6, 2024. Tarr moved for a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 on February 12, 2024. Clothing Arts did not oppose the motion.
On March 21, 2025, the court ordered Clothing Arts to show cause by March 31, 2025, why a default judgment should not be entered. Tarr served that order on March 25, 2025. Clothing Arts did not respond to the order or otherwise appear.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden entered a default judgment for Tarr against Clothing Arts on all claims. The court relied on the filed proof of service, the company’s failure to answer after the deadline, and its failure to appear to contest the judgment.
The court stated that injunctive and compensatory relief would be determined at an inquest. It also stated that costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees would be determined based on a later submission. By separate order, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein for an inquest into injunctive relief and damages. The court directed Tarr to serve the order on Clothing Arts by April 2, 2025, and file an affidavit showing that service. The Clerk was directed to terminate the default-judgment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.