Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 14, 2020

JTH Tax, Inc. v. Sawhney

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:19-cv-04035
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In JTH Tax, Inc. v. Sawhney, Judge Nathan ordered plaintiffs to prove service before considering default judgment and warned of possible dismissal.

Who this affects

JTH Tax, Inc. and Siempretaxt+ LLC must file proof of service of the default-judgment motion and the November 26, 2019 order by January 28, 2020. The order concerns their request for default judgment against Pawanmeet Sawhney.

What happened

In JTH Tax, Inc. v. Sawhney, JTH Tax, Inc. and Siempretaxt+ LLC asked the court to enter default judgment against Pawanmeet Sawhney.

The court had not received proof that the plaintiffs served the default-judgment motion or the court’s November 26, 2019 order. It ordered the plaintiffs to file both proofs of service by January 28, 2020.

Judge Alison J. Nathan did not decide the default-judgment motion. She warned that failing to file the required proof by the deadline may lead to dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim for failure to prosecute.

The detailed version

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

Case
JTH Tax, Inc. v. Sawhney · No. 1:19-cv-04035
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
Jan. 14, 2020

Background

JTH Tax, Inc. doing business as Liberty Tax Service, and Siempretaxt+ LLC moved for default judgment against Pawanmeet Sawhney on December 5, 2019. A default judgment is a judgment requested when a party has not defended the case.

Service Requirements

The court’s Individual Civil Rule 3L requires a plaintiff to serve the default-judgment motion and supporting papers on the opposing party and file an affidavit of service within fourteen days after filing the motion. The rule states that the court will not consider the motion until the affidavit is filed. The plaintiffs also had been directed to file proof that they served the court’s November 26, 2019 order.

Order

The court stated that it had not received proof of service for either the default-judgment motion or the November 26 order. It ordered the plaintiffs to file both proofs of service by January 28, 2020. The court did not rule on the default-judgment motion. It warned that failing to meet the deadline may result in dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. Judge Alison J. Nathan entered the order.

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.