Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 6, 2020

Steadfast Financial LP v. Steadfast Advisory Group, LLC

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:20-cv-05767
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Steadfast Financial v. Steadfast Advisory, Judge Furman extended the response deadline and set conditions for further proceedings.

Who this affects

Steadfast Advisory Group, LLC, its principal Pier-Luca Bruno, and Plaintiffs Steadfast Financial LP and Steadfast Capital Management.

What happened

In Steadfast Financial LP and Steadfast Capital Management v. Steadfast Advisory Group, LLC, the court extended Defendant’s deadline to oppose Plaintiffs’ request for default judgment to October 26, 2020.

The court said that if Defendant filed an answer by that date, the scheduled November 5 proceeding would be treated as the initial pretrial conference. It also warned that the limited liability company could appear in federal court only through a licensed lawyer and directed Plaintiffs to discuss possible mediation with Pier-Luca Bruno.

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered Plaintiffs to serve the order on Bruno and file proof of service within two business days. The order did not decide the request for default judgment or the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Steadfast Financial LP v. Steadfast Advisory Group, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-05767
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Oct. 6, 2020

Background

The court received an email from Pier-Luca Bruno, identified as a principal of Defendant Steadfast Advisory Group, LLC. Bruno asked for more time to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. In the email, he stated that he lacked the resources to hire counsel, disputed aspects of Plaintiffs’ claims, and said he intended to address the dispute by changing the business’s name and turning over its website address.

Court’s action

As a courtesy, the court extended Defendant’s deadline to file an opposition to the motion for default judgment until October 26, 2020. The order stated that if Defendant filed an answer by that date, the November 5, 2020 proceeding would serve as the initial pretrial conference. The parties were required to follow the procedures in the court’s earlier order, including submitting a joint letter and proposed case-management plan before the conference.

The court cautioned that a limited liability company may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. It also warned that a default judgment may be entered against a limited liability company that repeatedly fails to appear through counsel, and stated that filings had to be made through counsel using the court’s electronic filing system.

Other directives and disposition

The court directed Plaintiffs to confer with Bruno about whether mediation before the November 5 proceeding would be helpful or appropriate. Plaintiffs also had to serve a copy of the order on Bruno at the email address listed in the exhibit and file proof of service within two business days.

The order extended a deadline and gave procedural instructions. It did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment and did not decide the merits of the parties’ claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.