Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 9, 2025

Steven Hirsch Incorporated v. F151 Ventures, LLC

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:25-cv-00213
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Steven Hirsch Incorporated v. F151 Ventures, LLC, Judge Furman extended the opposition deadline and questioned requested injunctive relief.

Who this affects

Steven Hirsch Incorporated and F151 Ventures, LLC, particularly the defendant’s deadline to oppose the motion for default judgment and the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.

What happened

Steven Hirsch Incorporated asked the court to enter default judgment against F151 Ventures, LLC. The order concerns the deadline for F151 Ventures to oppose that request.

The court extended the opposition deadline, retroactively, until May 8, 2025. The order also stated that the court was skeptical of Steven Hirsch Incorporated’s request for an injunction, which is a court order requiring or prohibiting conduct.

Judge Jesse M. Furman noted that the plaintiff’s own declaration said F151 Ventures removed and replaced the photograph after the lawsuit began. He also said the plaintiff had not shown a risk of lasting harm, that money damages would be inadequate, or that the balance of hardships and public interest favored an injunction.

The detailed version

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

Case
Steven Hirsch Incorporated v. F151 Ventures, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-00213
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Apr. 9, 2025

Background

Steven Hirsch Incorporated filed a motion for default judgment against F151 Ventures, LLC. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. During a teleconference, the court addressed the schedule for F151 Ventures’s opposition to the motion.

Order

The court extended F151 Ventures’s deadline to oppose the motion for default judgment until May 8, 2025. The extension was made retroactively, meaning it applied as though entered earlier.

The court also expressed skepticism about the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. It relied in part on the plaintiff’s declaration, which stated that after the lawsuit began, F151 Ventures removed and replaced the plaintiff’s photograph from an online article on its website. The court further stated that the plaintiff had not shown a risk of irreparable harm, meaning harm that cannot adequately be remedied with money, or that monetary damages would be inadequate. It also stated that, because the plaintiff did not allege continuing infringement, the plaintiff’s arguments concerning the balance of hardships and the public interest generally carried less weight.

Disposition

The order extended the opposition deadline and stated the court’s skepticism about the requested injunction. The text does not state that the court granted or denied the motion for default judgment or entered a final ruling on injunctive relief. Judge Jesse M. Furman signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.