Mejia v. Corkcicle, LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-05792
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mejia v. Corkcicle, Judge Cronan ordered Plaintiff to seek default judgment or explain dismissal, while requiring discussion of the ADA claim’s legal validity.
Richard Mejia and Corkcicle, LLC. The order required action by Mejia and directed Corkcicle to appear and respond; it did not decide any class-wide relief.
What happened
In Mejia v. Corkcicle, LLC, Richard Mejia sued Corkcicle, LLC. Corkcicle was served but had not appeared or answered, and a clerk’s certificate of default was filed.
The court ordered Mejia to move for default judgment by September 8, 2022, or explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. It also ordered Corkcicle to appear at a telephone hearing and explain why default judgment should not be entered. The court did not enter default judgment in this order.
Judge John P. Cronan stated that a clerk’s default does not automatically require a default judgment. He directed the parties to be prepared to address whether the complaint states a valid claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, including issues concerning whether the defendant’s website qualifies as a public accommodation.
The detailed version
- Mejia v. Corkcicle, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05792
- John Cronan
- Aug. 18, 2022
Background
Richard Mejia filed the complaint on July 7, 2022. Corkcicle, LLC was served on July 25, 2022, making its answer due August 15, 2022. The opinion states that Corkcicle had not appeared or answered. A Clerk’s Certificate of Default was filed on August 17, 2022.
Court’s Orders
The court ordered Mejia to file a motion for default judgment by September 8, 2022, in compliance with the court’s local and individual rules, or show cause—give a sufficient explanation—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Mejia also had to serve the motion and supporting papers on Corkcicle by September 8 and file proof of service by September 12. Corkcicle’s opposition was due September 23, and Mejia’s reply was due September 30.
The court ordered Corkcicle to appear at a telephone hearing on October 13, 2022, and show cause why default judgment should not be entered. If Corkcicle did not appear, Mejia’s counsel had to be prepared to discuss service, notice, communications with Corkcicle, the alleged illegal conduct, and the method for calculating damages. Mejia also had to serve Corkcicle with the order by overnight courier within one week and file proof of service within two business days.
Default Judgment and Americans with Disabilities Act Issue
The court explained that a clerk’s default does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to default judgment. Before entering default judgment, the court must determine whether the complaint’s factual allegations, taken as true, establish liability as a matter of law. The court therefore directed counsel to be prepared to address whether the complaint alleges a valid claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, including cited authority concerning whether websites of businesses without public-facing physical retail operations are places of public accommodation.
This order set deadlines and required a hearing; it did not grant or deny default judgment and did not decide the validity of the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. If Corkcicle appeared and opposed the motion before the hearing, the hearing would also serve as an initial case-management conference.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.