Picon v. So Icy, Inc.

Background

Plaintiff Yelitza Picon, through counsel, submitted a status update and asked the court to cancel the initial pretrial conference scheduled for July 30, 2025. Plaintiff also requested 30 days to seek default judgment. Counsel reported that he had spoken with an employee of So Icy, Inc., but had not received a response from someone authorized to discuss the case.

Court’s Action

The court granted the application and adjourned the initial pretrial conference indefinitely. The court expected an application for an order to show cause—an order requiring the defendant to explain why default judgment should not be entered—to be filed no later than August 21, 2025. The court stated that any such application must comply with its Individual Rules, including Attachment A to the Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases.

Default-Judgment Standard and Directives

The court reminded the parties that, before entering default judgment, it must determine whether the plaintiff’s allegations establish liability as a matter of law. In making that determination, the court accepts factual allegations as true, except allegations concerning damages, and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. The court identified Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2009), and stated that its decision in Sook Fresh Clean Threads, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 3d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2024), may be instructive.

The court directed Plaintiff to serve a copy of the order on Defendant and retain proof of service. It also directed the clerk to terminate the motion pending at docket number 9. This order granted scheduling and filing-related relief; it did not enter default judgment or decide liability.