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
- 3
In Antsy Labs v. The Individuals, Judge Vyskocil extended the default-judgment deadline to May 2, 2022, and warned of possible dismissal for delay.
Antsy Labs LLC and ZURU Inc., as well as the remaining defendants against whom the plaintiffs might seek default judgments, were affected by the new May 2, 2022 deadline and the warning that the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
What happened
In Antsy Labs, LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint, the plaintiffs sued defendants they alleged were selling infringing products. The court had previously allowed expedited discovery and denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction without prejudice because they had not shown that the defendants were subject to jurisdiction in New York.
Only Sunwize International Trading Company filed a response. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed claims against several other defendants and did not continue prosecuting the case against the remaining defendants who had not appeared. The plaintiffs asked for more time to seek default judgments because online marketplaces had not provided information about where the defendants sold the products, and the plaintiffs had served subpoenas seeking that information.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the extension and set May 2, 2022, as the new deadline for filing any motion for default judgment against remaining defendants. The court warned that, absent exceptional circumstances, it would not grant another extension and that missing the deadline could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Antsy Labs v. Individuals · No. 1:21-cv-09899
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 6, 2022
Background
Antsy Labs LLC and ZURU Inc. filed the action on November 24, 2021. They also 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 allowed 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 to show cause concerning the late filing of proof of service, the plaintiffs filed an affidavit stating that the defendants had been served on December 7, 2022, in compliance with the court’s earlier order. The opinion states that defendants’ responses were due on December 28, 2021. Only Sunwize International Trading Company filed a response. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed claims against several defendants and had not prosecuted the case against the remaining defendants who had not appeared.
Motion for More Time
On March 14, 2022, the court ordered that any motion for default judgment against a remaining defendant be filed by April 4, 2022. The plaintiffs requested an extension. They represented that online marketplace platforms had not provided information about where the defendants sold the allegedly infringing products, despite the expedited-discovery order. The plaintiffs stated that they had served subpoenas under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking that information.
Ruling
The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for an extension. Any motion for default judgment against a remaining defendant had to be filed by May 2, 2022. The court directed the plaintiffs to follow the procedures in Judge Vyskocil’s individual rules and practices for civil cases.
The court also warned that it would not allow the case to continue indefinitely. Unless exceptional circumstances existed, it said it would not grant any further extensions. Failure to move for default judgment by May 2, 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 scheduling and case management; it did not decide whether the defendants infringed the plaintiffs’ rights.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.