AGM Development Group, Inc. v. Rinde
- Sarah Cave
- 1:25-cv-03208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In AGM Development, Inc. v. Rinde, Judge Cave ordered service and responses before considering AGM’s default-judgment motion.
AGM Development Group, Inc. and the respondents, including Jeffrey Rinde, were affected by the deadlines and service requirements; the court has not yet ruled on the requested default judgment or arbitration petition.
What happened
In AGM Development, Inc. v. Rinde, AGM asked the court to require arbitration and later moved for a default judgment after the respondents did not timely respond.
The court ordered AGM to file proof that it had served the respondents with the Clerk’s Certificate of Default and the default-judgment motion by June 23, 2025. The respondents then had 14 days after service to respond.
The court did not decide the default-judgment motion or the request to require arbitration. Judge Sarah L. Cave said she intends to prepare a report and recommendation based only on AGM’s written submissions if the respondents do not respond or request a hearing within the required period.
The detailed version
- AGM Development Group, Inc. v. Rinde · No. 1:25-cv-03208
- Sarah Cave
- June 9, 2025
Background
AGM Development Group, Inc. filed a petition asking the court to compel arbitration. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for general pretrial supervision and a ruling on the petition. AGM filed the petition on April 17, 2025, and filed proof that it served the respondents. After the respondents did not timely respond, the Clerk of Court issued a Certificate of Default. AGM then moved for default judgment on June 5, 2025.
Order
The court ordered AGM to file proof that it had served the respondents with the Certificate of Default and the default-judgment motion by June 23, 2025. The respondents must respond within 14 days after being served with the motion.
If the respondents do not respond or do not contact Judge Cave’s chambers within 14 days after service to request an in-court hearing, Judge Cave stated that she intends to issue a report and recommendation based only on AGM’s written submissions, without an in-court hearing. The order did not decide AGM’s default-judgment motion or its petition to compel arbitration.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.