Europgold Ltd. v. Silver N Gold Wholesale, LLC
- Rochon
- 1:24-cv-07297
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Europgold Ltd. v. Silver N Gold Wholesale, Judge Rochon denied as moot Europgold’s default-judgment motion against Alpine Gold Group.
Europgold Ltd., Alpine Gold Group, Inc., Silver N Gold Wholesale, LLC, and Padam Valiramani, also known as Mike Valiramani.
What happened
In Europgold Ltd. v. Silver N Gold Wholesale, Europgold asked for a default judgment against Alpine Gold Group after that company initially failed to respond to the complaint.
The court later extended the defendants’ response deadlines. Alpine Gold Group and Silver N Gold Wholesale filed an answer, and Padam Valiramani was served by email with an answer due July 30, 2025.
Judge Rochon denied the default-judgment motion as moot, without prejudice to renewing it against all three defendants later if Valiramani does not respond and no lawyer appears for the defendants.
The detailed version
- Europgold Ltd. v. Silver N Gold Wholesale, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-07297
- Rochon
- July 17, 2025
Background
The Clerk entered a certificate of default against Alpine Gold Group, Inc. on January 7, 2025, after it did not answer or otherwise respond to Europgold Ltd.’s complaint. Europgold then moved for default judgment against Alpine Gold Group alone.
Later proceedings
Before the other defendants had been properly served, the court held a remote conference and extended all defendants’ answer deadlines to May 8,
- Alpine Gold Group and Silver N Gold Wholesale, LLC filed an answer on May
- Padam Valiramani, also known as Mike Valiramani, did not file an answer. The court later allowed Europgold to serve Valiramani by email, and Europgold completed that service on July 9,
- Valiramani’s answer was therefore due July 30,
- The opinion also states that counsel for the defendants had not filed the required notice of appearance.
Ruling
Because all defendants had been served and Alpine Gold Group had filed an answer, the court denied as moot Europgold’s motion for default judgment. The denial was without prejudice to renewal against all three defendants at a later date if Valiramani fails to respond to the complaint and no appearance is entered for the defendants. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.