Chevrestt v. Emmis Communications Corporation
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:18-cv-06304
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Chevrestt v. Emmis Communications, Judge Kaplan granted default judgment against IFWT but denied it against Flexco.
The ruling affected the plaintiff’s request for default judgments against Flexco, LLC and IFWT, Inc.: the request was granted as to IFWT and denied as to Flexco.
What happened
In Chevrestt v. Emmis Communications Corporation, the plaintiff asked the court to enter default judgments against Flexco, LLC and IFWT, Inc.
Before entering a default judgment, the court checked whether it had power over each defendant and whether each had been properly served. The court found no apparent problem with service on IFWT, but found insufficient support for the claim that the person served for Flexco was authorized to accept service.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted the motion as to IFWT and denied it as to Flexco. The court said it would enter an appropriate judgment against IFWT.
The detailed version
- Chevrestt v. Emmis Communications Corporation · No. 1:18-cv-06304
- Lewis Kaplan
- Feb. 13, 2020
Background
Plaintiff moved for default judgment against Flexco, LLC and IFWT, Inc. A default judgment is a judgment entered when a party has not defended the case. Before entering one, the court said it could first determine whether it had personal jurisdiction—the legal power to decide a case involving the defendant.
Service and Personal Jurisdiction
The court reviewed public records and the plaintiff’s affidavit of service. The records identified Flexco as an Indiana limited liability company whose registered agent was CT Corporation System. The affidavit said Flexco had been personally served on Aston Taylor, Jr., in Ardsley, New York, and that Taylor was authorized to accept service for Flexco. But the affidavit stated no facts supporting that assertion. The court therefore had no proper basis to conclude that Flexco had been effectively served and was subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
The court found that IFWT was a New York corporation and that Taylor was its registered agent for service of process. Because IFWT was served in the same manner, the court found no apparent defect in personal jurisdiction as to IFWT.
Ruling
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as to IFWT and denied it as to Flexco. The court stated that it would enter an appropriate judgment against IFWT.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.