Antsy Labs v. Individuals
Antsy Labs, LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-09899
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Antsy Labs v. The Individuals, Judge Vyskocil ordered plaintiffs to seek default judgment by April 4, 2022, or risk dismissal for delay.
Antsy Labs LLC and ZURU Inc., as the plaintiffs, were ordered to pursue default judgment against the remaining defendants who had not appeared. Sunwize International Trading Company had filed a response and was not identified as a remaining non-appearing defendant.
What happened
Antsy Labs, LLC and ZURU Inc. sued the defendants listed on Schedule A. The opinion says the defendants were served, but only Sunwize International Trading Company responded. The remaining defendants did not respond by the stated deadline.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file any motion seeking a default judgment against the remaining non-appearing defendants by April 4, 2022. The court directed the plaintiffs to follow its procedures for default judgments.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil warned that failing to file the motion by that date may result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. The order did not itself enter a default judgment or dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Antsy Labs v. Individuals · No. 1:21-cv-09899
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 14, 2022
Background
Antsy Labs LLC and ZURU Inc. brought this action on November 24, 2021. The opinion states that an affidavit showing service of the summons and complaint was filed on March 2, 2022. It further states that the defendants were served on December 7, 2022 under an order concerning a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, and that their responses were due December 28, 2021.
Only one defendant, Sunwize International Trading Company, filed a response. The plaintiffs had not prosecuted the case against the remaining defendants who had not appeared.
Order
The court ordered that any motion for entry of a default judgment against the remaining non-appearing defendants be filed by April 4, 2022. A default judgment is a judgment that may be entered when a defendant does not respond or otherwise participate as required. The plaintiffs were directed to follow the court's Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases governing default-judgment motions.
The court warned that failure to move for a default judgment by April 4, 2022 may result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order did not grant a default judgment and did not dismiss the action. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.