Paguada v. LongCap Lamson Products, LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-00362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Paguada v. LongCap Lamson Products, Judge Oetken denied Paguada’s default-judgment motion without prejudice and allowed renewal.
Josue Paguada’s request for default judgment against LongCap Lamson Products, LLC was denied without prejudice and with leave to renew because the court found insufficient proof of service of the complaint and the motion.
What happened
In Paguada v. LongCap Lamson Products, LLC, Josue Paguada asked the court to enter a judgment because the defendant had not appeared.
The court found that Paguada had not filed proof that he properly served the complaint, because his service affidavit stated only that the summons was served. He also had not filed proof that he mailed the default-judgment motion and supporting papers to the defendant’s last known business address, as required by the court’s local rule.
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the motion without prejudice and with leave to renew. The order did not decide whether Paguada was entitled to the requested judgment.
The detailed version
- Paguada v. LongCap Lamson Products, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-00362
- James Oetken
- Mar. 28, 2022
Background
Josue Paguada moved for default judgment against LongCap Lamson Products, LLC. A default judgment is a judgment requested against a party that has not responded or appeared. Before entering one, the court must have authority over the defendant and must be satisfied that the defendant was properly served.
Service of the Complaint
The court stated that Paguada had not filed proof that he properly served the complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1) requires a summons to be served together with a copy of the complaint. Paguada’s affidavit of service stated only that his provider “served the summons.”
Service of the Default-Judgment Motion
The court also found that Paguada had not properly served the motion for default judgment. Southern District of New York Local Rule 55.2 requires the motion and supporting papers to be mailed at the same time to the party against whom default judgment is sought, at that party’s last known business address when the party is not an individual. The rule also requires proof of that mailing to be filed with the court. Paguada had not filed the required proof.
Ruling
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Paguada’s motion for default judgment without prejudice and with leave to renew. The order addressed service requirements and did not decide the underlying merits of Paguada’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.