The Lovesac Company v. WGST Production, Inc.
- Denise Cote
- 1:21-cv-08104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lovesac v. WGST Production, Judge Nathan ordered refiling of default motions and warned that delay could lead to dismissal.
The Lovesac Company, which was ordered to refile its motion for entry of default and file a motion for default judgment by March 18, 2022; the defendants were affected by the potential default proceedings.
What happened
The Lovesac Company sued WGST Production, Inc., and other defendants. The opinion says the court had ordered Lovesac to seek a default judgment by February 4, 2022.
The Clerk’s Office later terminated Lovesac’s motion to enter default because it had been filed incorrectly. The court ordered Lovesac to refile that motion and submit a motion for default judgment by March 18, 2022.
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that failing to meet the deadline could result in dismissal of Lovesac’s claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide whether Lovesac was entitled to a default judgment.
The detailed version
- The Lovesac Company v. WGST Production, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08104
- Denise Cote
- Mar. 9, 2022
Background
The court had ordered The Lovesac Company to file a motion for default judgment by February 4, 2022. On February 15, 2022, the Clerk’s Office terminated Lovesac’s motion for an entry of default and directed Lovesac to refile it because the motion had been filed erroneously.
Order
The court ordered Lovesac to refile its motion for entry of default and file a motion for default judgment by March 18, 2022. An entry of default is a formal recognition that a defendant has failed to respond as required; a default judgment is a judgment that may follow from that failure. The order did not grant or deny default judgment.
Warning and disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that failure to comply with the deadline could result in dismissal of Lovesac’s claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order therefore set filing requirements and issued a warning; it did not itself dismiss the claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.