Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 19, 2025

American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. KAD Construction Corp.

Full caption

American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. KAD Construction Corp., et al.

Judge
Vargas
Docket
1:23-cv-09653
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. KAD Construction Corp., Judge Vargas scheduled briefing and a hearing on Plaintiff’s request for default judgment.

Who this affects

American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company and all remaining defendants, including KAD Construction Corp.

What happened

In American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. KAD Construction Corp., the insurance company asked for a default judgment against all remaining defendants after they failed to respond to the lawsuit. A default judgment could result in some or all of the relief requested, including money damages.

The court ordered the defendants to oppose the motion by December 10, 2025, and to attend a hearing on December 22, 2025. The court warned that corporate defendants may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel and that repeated failure to do so may lead to default judgment.

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas did not decide whether to enter default judgment. She ordered the insurance company to serve the motion, supporting papers, and order on the defendants by overnight courier and to file proof of service.

The detailed version

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

Case
American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. KAD Construction Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-09653
Judge
Vargas
Date
Nov. 19, 2025

Background

On November 10, 2025, American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company moved for a default judgment against all remaining defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 55.2(b). A default judgment is a ruling that may end litigation in a plaintiff’s favor because a defendant failed to respond. The court explained that, if entered, it could award some or all of the relief requested in the complaint, including money damages.

Orders

The court ordered the defendants to file any opposition to the motion by December 10, 2025. It also ordered them to appear before the court on December 22, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to show why default judgment should not be entered against them. The court cautioned that corporate entities may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel and that repeated failure to appear through counsel may result in default judgment.

The court separately ordered the plaintiff to serve the defendants, within one business day of the order, with the default-judgment motion, all supporting papers, and a copy of the order by overnight courier. The plaintiff must file proof of service on the docket within two business days after service.

Disposition

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas scheduled briefing and a hearing on the default-judgment motion. The order did not grant or deny the motion and did not decide whether the defendants are liable or owe damages.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.