Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 22, 2022

GBM Global Holding Company Limited v. The Unidentified Individuals Listed on…

Full caption

GBM Global Holding Company Limited v. The Unidentified Individuals Listed on Schedule A

Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Docket
1:21-cv-06284
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In GBM Global v. The Unidentified Individuals, Judge Nathan ordered a default-judgment motion or status update by April 8, 2022.

Who this affects

GBM Global Holding Company Limited was ordered to take action by April 8, 2022. The unidentified defendants were subject to the existing preliminary injunction, and the plaintiff’s claims could potentially be dismissed if the plaintiff failed to act.

What happened

GBM Global Holding Company Limited sued The Unidentified Individuals Listed on Schedule A. The court had issued a preliminary injunction on August 23, 2021, but no activity had occurred since then.

The court ordered GBM Global to file a motion for default judgment by April 8, 2022, or to file a status update explaining why it should not do so.

Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that failing to act could lead to dismissal of GBM Global’s claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss the claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
GBM Global Holding Company Limited v. The Unidentified Individuals Listed on… · No. 1:21-cv-06284
Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Date
Mar. 22, 2022

Background

The court had issued a preliminary injunction against the defendants on August 23, 2021. The order states that no activity had occurred in the case since that date.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiff to file, by April 8, 2022, either a motion for default judgment or a status update explaining why a motion for default judgment should not be filed. Default judgment is a judgment entered when a defendant has not defended the case.

The court warned that failing to act could result in dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court did not dismiss the claims in this order. Judge Alison J. Nathan signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.