Zuru PTE. v. Individuals
Zuru (Singapore) PTE., Ltd. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-09817
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Zuru v. the Schedule A defendants, Judge Vyskocil granted Zuru more time to seek default judgment, setting an April 28, 2022 deadline.
The plaintiffs received additional time to move for default judgment against any remaining defendants. The remaining defendants faced the extended April 28, 2022 deadline and the possibility of dismissal if the plaintiffs did not meet it.
What happened
Zuru (Singapore) PTE., Ltd., ZURU LLC, and ZURU INC. sued defendants identified on Schedule A. The court had previously granted temporary relief and expedited discovery, but denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction without prejudice because they had not shown that the defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in New York.
The defendants did not file responses, and the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed claims against several defendants. After the court set an April 1, 2022 deadline for a default-judgment motion against any remaining defendants, the plaintiffs asked for more time. They said online marketplaces had not provided information needed to determine where the defendants sold the allegedly infringing products and that they had served subpoenas seeking that information.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the extension. The court ordered that any motion for default judgment against remaining defendants be filed by April 28, 2022, and warned that it generally would not grant another extension and that failing to meet the deadline could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Zuru PTE. v. Individuals · No. 1:21-cv-09817
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 6, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs filed the action on November 23, 2021, and sought a temporary restraining order and an order requiring the defendants to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The court granted the temporary restraining order and authorized expedited discovery. It later denied the preliminary-injunction motion without prejudice because the plaintiffs had not shown that the defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in New York.
After an order concerning proof of service, the plaintiffs filed an affidavit stating that the defendants had been served. The defendants’ responses were due on January 11, 2022, but no responses were filed. The plaintiffs also voluntarily dismissed their claims against several defendants. The court later ordered that any motion for default judgment against remaining defendants be filed by April 1, 2022.
Request for More Time
The plaintiffs requested an extension of the deadline. They represented that online marketplace platforms had not provided information about where the defendants sold the allegedly infringing products. They stated that they had served subpoenas under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 to obtain information needed to determine the location of those sales.
Ruling
The court granted the request for an extension. It ordered that any motion for default judgment against remaining defendants be filed by April 28, 2022, and directed the plaintiffs to follow the court’s procedures for default-judgment motions.
The court warned that it would not allow the case to continue indefinitely. Unless exceptional circumstances existed, it said it would not grant further extensions. The court also warned that failing to move for default judgment by April 28, 2022, could result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This order addressed the filing deadline; it did not enter default judgment or decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.