Fleishman v. Alfalfa Studio LLC
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-10034
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Fleishman v. Alfalfa Studio LLC, Judge Nathan ordered the plaintiff to seek default judgment or explain why she should not do so.
The plaintiff was required to seek default judgment or explain why she should not do so, serve the order, and file proof of service. The defendant faced a potential default judgment after failing to respond, according to the order.
What happened
Fleishman v. Alfalfa Studio LLC concerns the defendant’s failure to respond to the complaint by the stated deadline. The court had not received an answer or other response.
The court ordered the plaintiff, within two weeks, to seek a certificate of default and move for default judgment, or file a status update explaining why she should not do so. She also had to serve the order on the defendant and file proof of service within two business days.
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that failing to comply could result in dismissal of the claim with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the underlying claim.
The detailed version
- Fleishman v. Alfalfa Studio LLC · No. 1:19-cv-10034
- Alison Nathan
- Jan. 16, 2020
Background
According to the plaintiff’s affidavit of service, the defendant’s answer or other response to the complaint was due by November 22, 2019. The court stated that it had not received the defendant’s answer as of the date of the order.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiff, within two weeks, to seek a certificate of default and move for default judgment under the court’s individual practices, or to file a status update explaining why a motion for default judgment should not be filed at that time.
The plaintiff also had to serve the order on the defendant and file an affidavit of service on the court’s electronic filing system within two business days of the order’s date.
Warning and disposition
The court warned that failing to comply by the required date could result in dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim with prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning the claim could be barred from being brought again on that basis. The order directed the plaintiff to take these procedural steps; it did not decide the merits of the underlying claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.