City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Sater
- John Koeltl
- 1:19-cv-02645
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In City of Almaty v. Sater, Judge Nathan vacated MeM’s default and denied the plaintiffs’ default-judgment motion as moot, allowing refiling.
The ruling affected MeM Energy Partners LLC and the plaintiffs, City of Almaty, Kazakhstan and BTA Bank JSC. MeM’s default was vacated, and the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment was denied as moot with leave to refile. The plaintiffs were also ordered to serve MeM with the order and file proof of service.
What happened
In City of Almaty, Kazakhstan and BTA Bank JSC v. Felix Sater, et al., the clerk had entered a default against MeM Energy Partners LLC because it did not appear. The plaintiffs then asked the court to enter judgment based on that default.
The plaintiffs later filed an amended complaint. Because the amended complaint replaced the earlier complaint and added no new claims against MeM, the court concluded that the default and the default-judgment motion were no longer effective.
The court vacated MeM’s default as moot and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment as moot, with leave to refile. Judge Alison J. Nathan also ordered the plaintiffs to serve MeM with the order and file proof of service.
The detailed version
- City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Sater · No. 1:19-cv-02645
- John Koeltl
- Mar. 3, 2020
Background
On July 24, 2019, the clerk entered a default against non-appearing defendant MeM Energy Partners LLC. A default is an entry recognizing that a defendant did not appear or otherwise respond. On July 31, 2019, the plaintiffs moved for default judgment against MeM.
The plaintiffs then filed a First Amended Complaint on August 30, 2019. The court stated that an amended complaint ordinarily replaces the original complaint and makes the original complaint legally ineffective. Because the First Amended Complaint added no new claims for relief against MeM, it became the operative pleading.
Ruling
The court held that filing the First Amended Complaint made the entry of default against MeM and the motion for default judgment moot. “Moot” means that the issue no longer presents a live matter for the court to decide.
The court vacated the entry of default against MeM as moot and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment as moot with leave to refile. The court also ordered the plaintiffs to serve MeM with a copy of the order and file proof of service on the public docket. The order resolved docket entry 68.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.