Castillo v. Pichardo 2230 Restaurant Corp.
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-08756
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Castillo v. Pichardo 2230 Restaurant Corp., Judge Koeltl received Plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline for seeking default judgment.
Plaintiff and Defendants in the case; the requested extension concerned the timing of Plaintiff’s potential motion for default judgment.
What happened
In Castillo v. Pichardo 2230 Restaurant Corp., Plaintiff’s lawyer asked for more time to seek default judgment on a newly amended complaint. The amended complaint had been filed but not yet served on Defendants.
The lawyer explained that the Court had previously extended the deadline for seeking default judgment and had allowed Plaintiff to file and serve the amended complaint. The Court later set an April 20, 2022 deadline, but Plaintiff said service had to occur before a default-judgment request could properly be made.
The supplied text does not show a ruling on the extension request. Judge Koeltl’s action on the request is therefore unclear from the opinion text provided.
The detailed version
- Castillo v. Pichardo 2230 Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-08756
- John Koeltl
- Apr. 19, 2022
Nature of the document
The supplied text is a letter from Plaintiff’s counsel to Judge John G. Koeltl. Counsel states that the firm represents Plaintiff and asks for an extension of time to submit an order showing why default judgment should be entered after the First Amended Complaint is served and Defendants fail to respond.
Background and procedural history
The letter states that the original deadline to seek default judgment was March 21, 2022. On March 21, the Court extended Plaintiff’s time to seek default judgment. On March 31, the Court granted Plaintiff permission to file and serve a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed that amended complaint on April 4, 2022, but the letter states that it had not yet been served.
The letter also states that, before service of the amended complaint, the Court ordered Plaintiff to seek default judgment by April 20, 2022. Counsel argued that Plaintiff first needed to serve the amended complaint and establish that Defendants were in default. Counsel cited decisions stating that default judgment on an amended pleading requires an adequate showing that the amended pleading was properly served.
Requested relief and disposition
Plaintiff requested an extension of time to seek default judgment until after the First Amended Complaint was served and Defendants were in default. The supplied text does not state whether Judge Koeltl granted, denied, or otherwise resolved that request. It therefore does not show a disposition of the letter request.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.