Gildo v. No Weather, LLC
- William Pauley
- 1:19-cv-03398
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gildo v. No Weather, Judge Pauley denied without prejudice Gildo’s default-judgment motion because service was not certified.
Michael Gildo must properly serve and refile his default-judgment motion; No Weather, LLC may oppose the refiled motion; and Gildo’s request for attorneys’ fees remained subject to the court’s stated concerns.
What happened
In Gildo v. No Weather, LLC, the clerk had issued a certificate of default against No Weather, LLC, and Michael Gildo later requested a judgment because the company had not appeared or opposed his request.
The court found that Gildo had not certified serving the court’s briefing-schedule order or his default-judgment motion and supporting papers. It therefore denied the motion without prejudice and required Gildo to refile it by December 10, 2019, after serving the required recipients. The court set January 10, 2020, for any opposition and January 17, 2020, for Gildo’s reply.
Judge William H. Pauley III also expressed skepticism about Gildo’s request for $2,975 in attorneys’ fees and warned that the court would not award fees for excessive time spent assembling stock documents. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Gildo v. No Weather, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-03398
- William Pauley
- Dec. 3, 2019
Background
The Clerk of Court issued a Certificate of Default against No Weather, LLC, on July 1, 2019. On August 28, 2019, Michael Gildo moved for default judgment. No Weather had not appeared or opposed the motion.
Ruling
The court denied Gildo’s motion for default judgment without prejudice. It stated that Gildo had not certified serving No Weather with the court’s July 9, 2019 order setting the briefing schedule or with the motion and accompanying papers. The court ordered Gildo to refile the motion by December 10, 2019, serve the motion, supporting papers, and the order on the Secretary of State and No Weather at its principal place of business, and note service on the docket. Any opposition was due January 10, 2020, and any reply was due January 17, 2020.
Attorneys’ Fees
After reviewing the motion and supporting papers, the court expressed skepticism about Gildo’s request for $2,975 in attorneys’ fees. It was particularly concerned that counsel claimed 3.5 hours for drafting and researching the default-judgment application even though the documents closely resembled filings counsel had submitted in other copyright-infringement cases. The court stated that it would not award fees for excessive time spent assembling stock documents. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.