Robinson v. Alpina Investments
Carol Robinson and Shelter Realty LLC v. Alpina Investments, Inc., Seth Eschen, and Mohan Toramall
- Rearden
- 1:25-cv-03671
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Carol Robinson v. Alpina Investments: Judge Rearden held the default-judgment motion in abeyance pending a liability determination for the remaining defendant.
Carol Robinson and Shelter Realty LLC, and the defendants Alpina Investments, Inc. and Mohan Toramall. The motion for default judgment was postponed; the certificates of default against Alpina Investments and Mohan Toramall remain in effect.
What happened
In Carol Robinson and Shelter Realty LLC v. Alpina Investments, Inc., Seth Eschen, and Mohan Toramall, the plaintiffs asked for a judgment because Alpina Investments and Mohan Toramall had not answered or otherwise defended against the complaint. The request was made under the federal rule governing default judgments.
The court did not enter a default judgment. Instead, it held the motion in abeyance, meaning it postponed deciding it, until the court determines liability for the defendant who has not defaulted. The certificates of default against Alpina Investments and Mohan Toramall remain in effect, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motion from the docket.
Judge Rearden issued the November 19, 2025 order. The ruling was procedural and did not decide the underlying claims or the amount of any recovery.
The detailed version
- Robinson v. Alpina Investments · No. 1:25-cv-03671
- Rearden
- Nov. 19, 2025
Background
Carol Robinson and Shelter Realty LLC moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and Local Rule 55.2(b) for default judgment against Alpina Investments, Inc. and Mohan Toramall. The motion stated that those defendants had failed to answer or otherwise defend against the complaint. The motion did not seek default judgment against Seth Eschen.
Ruling
The court held the motion for default judgment against Alpina Investments and Mohan Toramall in abeyance, meaning that it postponed deciding the motion, until liability is determined with respect to the non-defaulting defendant. The court left the certificates of default against the two defaulting defendants in effect. It explained that those certificates prevent them from arguing the merits of the claims against them from August 26, 2025, forward.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion identified as ECF No. 24. The order did not enter default judgment and did not decide liability, damages, or the merits of the claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order. A default judgment ordinarily follows a defendant's failure to appear and does not represent an adversarial decision on the merits; here, the court postponed the default-judgment decision while liability concerning the non-defaulting defendant remained unresolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.