Gogo Apparel, Inc v. Daruk Imports, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-05701
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gogo Apparel v. Daruk Imports, Judge Aaron ordered more briefing before deciding default judgment against Vinod Kumar Chawla.
Gogo Apparel, Inc., Daruk Imports, Inc., and Vinod Kumar Chawla. The order required Gogo Apparel to provide additional briefing before the court would decide whether to enter default judgment against Chawla; it also recognized the Clerk's Certificate of Default against Daruk Imports.
What happened
Gogo Apparel, Inc. asked for default judgment against Daruk Imports, Inc. and Vinod Kumar Chawla. The court explained that the Clerk had entered a default certificate against Daruk Imports, but Chawla had not yet been found in default.
The court treated the request against Chawla as a request for a default judgment based on failure to follow discovery-related orders, rather than as a standard default request. The court did not decide whether default judgment should be entered against Chawla.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered Gogo Apparel to file additional briefing by May 26, 2020, addressing whether the legal requirements for default judgment against Chawla were met. The order also directed chambers to email Chawla a copy.
The detailed version
- Gogo Apparel, Inc v. Daruk Imports, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-05701
- Lorna Schofield
- May 19, 2020
Background
Gogo Apparel, Inc. moved for default judgment against both Daruk Imports, Inc. and Vinod Kumar Chawla. The motion cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), which concerns entry of default when a party fails to plead or otherwise defend.
The court stated that Daruk Imports, a corporation, could not proceed without a lawyer and that its failure to obtain counsel counted as a failure to defend. The Clerk of Court therefore appropriately entered a Certificate of Default against Daruk Imports. The court emphasized that Chawla had not yet been found to be in default.
Ruling
The court determined that Gogo Apparel's request concerning Chawla appeared to rely on Chawla's failure to respond to a motion to compel and to appear for a telephone conference. The court construed that request as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b), which permits a court to impose sanctions, including default judgment, when a party fails to obey a discovery order.
The court ordered that, if Gogo Apparel intended to continue pursuing default judgment against Chawla, it had to file supplemental briefing by May 26, 2020. The briefing had to address whether the legal standard for entering default judgment against Chawla was satisfied, including factors such as the willfulness or reason for the noncompliance, whether lesser sanctions would be effective, the duration of the noncompliance, and whether Chawla had been warned about the consequences. The order did not enter default judgment against Chawla and did not decide the merits of Gogo Apparel's claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.