Mattel v. Store
Mattel, Inc. v. Auuisa Store, Inc. d/b/a www.dreambarbiedoll.com d/b/a www.dreambarbiedolls.com d/b/a www.jinxxmas.com d/b/a www.mattelblackfriday.com
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-00561
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mattel v. Auuisa Store, Judge Castel denied Mattel’s motion for default judgment because defendants appeared, answered, and were litigating.
Mattel’s request for default judgment was denied, and the defendants remained participating parties in the case.
What happened
Mattel, Inc. asked the court to enter default judgment against all defendants. Default judgment is a decision entered when a party does not respond or participate in a case.
The defendants obtained a lawyer, answered Mattel’s complaint, and participated in the case. The court had also entered a case-management plan and scheduling order. Because the defendants had appeared and were actively litigating, the court denied Mattel’s motion for default judgment.
Judge Castel directed the Clerk to terminate the default-judgment motion. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Mattel v. Store · No. 1:22-cv-00561
- P. Castel
- June 2, 2022
Background
On March 8, 2022, Mattel moved for default judgment against all defendants. A lawyer later appeared for the defendants, and the court granted permission for that lawyer to participate in the case. Defense counsel said the defendants were located in China, were not native English speakers, and needed additional time to learn about the case and retain counsel. The defendants filed an answer on April 15, 2022.
The court then held an initial pretrial conference and entered a case-management plan and scheduling order. Mattel did not withdraw its default-judgment motion, and the defendants did not respond to it. Neither side referred to the motion at the conference.
Ruling
The court explained that default judgment is generally disfavored and reserved for unusual situations. It denied Mattel’s motion because the defendants had appeared, answered, and were actively litigating the case. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion. The order did not decide the merits of Mattel’s claims or enter default judgment against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.