Wow Virtual Reality Inc. v. Alwaysfaith International Trade Co.
Wow Virtual Reality Inc. v. Alwaysfaith International Trade Co., Ltd.(Huizhou)et al […]
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-05475
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wow Virtual Reality v. Changchun Baidroid, Judge Woods ordered a fuller memorandum supporting the plaintiff’s request for default judgment.
The order required action by Wow Virtual Reality, Inc. and directed service on the defendants; it did not determine the defendants’ liability or decide the requested relief.
What happened
In Wow Virtual Reality, Inc. v. Changchun Baidroid Photoelectric Co., Ltd. et al., the plaintiff filed papers supporting an order requiring the defendants to explain why relief should not be granted, including default judgment.
The court found that the plaintiff’s memorandum did not adequately explain the legal requirements for each claim or show how the complaint’s facts established each defendant’s liability. The court also pointed out contrary authority about transferring frozen assets to satisfy a judgment.
Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the plaintiff to file a corrected memorandum by February 7, 2020, serve the order on the defendants, and keep proof of service. The order did not decide whether default judgment or asset transfer should be granted.
The detailed version
- Wow Virtual Reality Inc. v. Alwaysfaith International Trade Co. · No. 1:19-cv-05475
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 30, 2020
Background
Wow Virtual Reality, Inc. filed papers supporting its request for an order to show cause and seeking default judgment against the defendants. The opinion identifies the plaintiff’s supporting papers as Docket Nos. 38–44.
Court’s analysis
The court’s Individual Rules required the plaintiff’s memorandum to explain the elements of each cause of action for which it sought default judgment and to provide legal authority. The memorandum also had to analyze, for each defendant and each cause of action, why the facts pleaded in the complaint established liability. Judge Woods found that the memorandum did not meet these requirements.
The plaintiff also cited cases supporting a request to transfer a defaulting defendant’s frozen assets to satisfy a judgment. The court noted that the plaintiff had not cited a prior decision by Judge Woods holding that such a request violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69, as well as another decision addressing the issue. The court warned that failing to address contrary authority may lead to sanctions under Rule 11, which governs certain improper filings, and emphasized counsel’s duty to be candid with the court.
Order
Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the plaintiff to file a memorandum adequately addressing the required issues no later than February 7, 2020. He also directed the plaintiff to serve the order on the defendants and retain proof of service. The order did not grant or deny default judgment, decide liability, or rule on the request to transfer frozen assets.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.