Ramales v. Shaykhlislamova
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-03729
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ramales v. Shaykhlislamova, Judge Vyskocil denied default judgment and postponed the hearing after Defendant said she intended to defend.
The ruling directly affected Ulices Ramales’s request for default judgment and Irina Valeryevna Shaykhlislamova’s opportunity to defend the copyright case. It denied the requested judgment, postponed the hearing without a new date, and required further service of the order.
What happened
In Ramales v. Shaykhlislamova, Ulices Ramales sued Irina Valeryevna Shaykhlislamova for copyright infringement. After Shaykhlislamova did not initially respond, the Clerk issued a certificate of default, and Ramales asked for a default judgment.
Shaykhlislamova later appeared by letter and asked to postpone the default-judgment hearing so she could obtain a lawyer. The court explained that a plaintiff is not automatically entitled to a default judgment merely because the defendant failed to respond, and that courts prefer deciding disputes on their merits.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Ramales’s motion for entry of default judgment and adjourned the May 13, 2025 hearing without setting a new date. The court also ordered Ramales to promptly and properly serve the order on Shaykhlislamova and noted her representation that the address used for earlier service was not hers.
The detailed version
- Ramales v. Shaykhlislamova · No. 1:24-cv-03729
- Vyskocil
- May 12, 2025
Background
Ulices Ramales filed a copyright-infringement complaint against Irina Valeryevna Shaykhlislamova on May 15, 2024. Ramales filed an affirmation of service. When Shaykhlislamova did not initially appear or respond, the Clerk of Court issued a Certificate of Default, and Ramales moved for entry of a default judgment.
The Court scheduled a default-judgment hearing for May 13, 2025. Shaykhlislamova then filed a letter asking to postpone the hearing so she could obtain counsel. The opinion states that she appeared and expressed an intent to obtain counsel and defend herself.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 uses a two-step process when a party fails to defend: entry of a default, followed by entry of a default judgment. The court explained that a plaintiff is not entitled to default judgment automatically merely because a defendant failed to appear or respond. Entry of default judgment is within the trial court’s discretion, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit prefers resolving disputes on their merits.
Ruling
The Court concluded that Shaykhlislamova’s appearance and stated intent to obtain counsel and defend the case allowed the dispute to be resolved on its merits. Accordingly, the Court denied Ramales’s motion for entry of default judgment. It also adjourned the default hearing scheduled for May 13, 2025 sine die, meaning without setting a new date.
The Court further ordered Ramales to promptly and properly serve the order on Shaykhlislamova. The Court took no position on whether earlier service was proper but noted that Shaykhlislamova had told Chambers that the address listed in the service affirmations was not her address. The Clerk was asked to terminate the motion at docket entry 17. The opinion did not decide the underlying copyright-infringement claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.