Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 29, 2025

Ke v. Bimi Holdings Inc.

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:24-cv-06324
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jian Ke v. Bimi Holdings, Judge Clarke declined to enter default judgment now because another defendant is defending the case.

Who this affects

Jian Ke, Bimi Holdings Inc., Tiewei Song, and Oudom FNU; the court did not enter default judgment against Bimi Holdings Inc. or Tiewei Song at this time.

What happened

In Jian Ke v. Bimi Holdings Inc., Tiewei Song, and Oudom FNU, Jian Ke asked the court to enter default judgment against the defendants who had not responded. The court ordered Bimi Holdings Inc. and Tiewei Song to explain why judgment should not be entered, but they did not respond by the deadline.

Oudom FNU had appeared and was defending the case. The court said entering judgment against the other defendants before resolving the case against Mr. FNU could lead to inconsistent results.

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke declined to enter default judgment at this time. The court directed the clerk to terminate the two default-judgment motions, stating that it would resolve them after the case was finally resolved as to Mr. FNU.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ke v. Bimi Holdings Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-06324
Judge
Clarke
Date
Sept. 29, 2025

Background

On February 7, 2025, and March 28, 2025, Jian Ke filed motions for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 55.2(b). A default judgment is a judgment requested against a party that has not defended the case.

On August 11, 2025, the court ordered Bimi Holdings Inc. and Tiewei Song to respond in writing by August 22, 2025, explaining why default judgment should not be entered against them. The court warned that judgment could be entered if they did not respond. They did not file anything by that deadline.

Court’s Reasoning

The court noted that Oudom FNU had appeared and was defending the action. It declined to enter default judgment against the non-appearing defendants at that time because doing so could produce inconsistent results while the case remained unresolved as to Mr. FNU.

Disposition

The court will resolve the default-judgment motions after final resolution of the case as to Mr. FNU. It directed the clerk to terminate ECF Nos. 34 and 43, which correspond to the two motions. The order did not enter default judgment against any defendant.

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.