Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 1, 2020

Nisbett v. Buffy Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:20-cv-02981
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Nisbett v. Buffy Inc., Judge Furman scheduled default-judgment briefing and a show-cause hearing after Buffy failed to appear.

Who this affects

Nisbett and Buffy Inc.; the order primarily set deadlines and procedures for a possible default-judgment motion and hearing.

What happened

In Nisbett v. Buffy Inc., Nisbett filed a complaint, and Buffy was served on July 29, 2020. The opinion states that Buffy had not answered the complaint or otherwise appeared by October 1, 2020.

The court set December 3, 2020, as the deadline for any motion for default judgment and December 10, 2020, as the deadline for Buffy’s opposition. The court also ordered Buffy to appear on December 15, 2020, and explain why default judgment should not be entered if a motion was filed.

Judge Furman did not enter default judgment in this order. He also ordered service of the order and any motion papers on Buffy, provided procedures if Buffy appeared, and adjourned the previously scheduled initial pretrial conference indefinitely.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nisbett v. Buffy Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02981
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Oct. 1, 2020

Background

Nisbett filed the complaint on April 12, 2020. Buffy was served on July 29, 2020, and proof of service was filed with the court. The court stated that Buffy had not answered the complaint or otherwise appeared in the action.

Court’s Orders

The court ordered that any motion for default judgment be filed by December 3, 2020, under the court’s individual rules. Buffy was given until December 10, 2020, to oppose that motion. The court cautioned that a corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel and that repeated failure to appear through counsel may lead to entry of default judgment.

If a motion for default judgment was filed, the court ordered Buffy to appear at a December 15, 2020, hearing and show cause—that is, explain—why default judgment should not be entered. Nisbett was required to file a proposed default judgment order for the Clerk’s approval before the hearing.

If Buffy appeared, opposed the motion, or requested an extension of time to respond to the complaint, the court directed the parties to treat the hearing as the initial pretrial conference and follow specified procedures, including submitting a joint letter and proposed case-management plan and participating in early mediation.

The court also ordered Nisbett to serve Buffy with the order within one business day and to serve any default-judgment motion and supporting papers within one business day after filing. Nisbett had to file proof of each service on the docket within two business days.

Disposition

The order scheduled briefing and a possible show-cause hearing; it did not grant or deny default judgment. The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference previously set for October 6, 2020, indefinitely and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 14.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.