City Merchandise Inc. v. Tian Tian Trading Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-09649
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In City Merchandise v. Tian Tian Trading, Judge Vyskocil struck Defendants’ answer and ordered defaults after repeated failures to follow court orders and participate.
Tian Tian Trading Inc. and Weiwei Lin were placed in default after their answer was struck; City Merchandise Inc. was allowed to seek a default judgment on its claims.
What happened
In City Merchandise Inc. v. Tian Tian Trading Inc. and Weiwei Lin, the defendants failed to follow several court orders. Tian Tian Trading Inc. did not retain replacement counsel, and both defendants failed to participate in discovery, submit a required status letter, attend a status conference, appear at a hearing, or respond to later warnings.
The court had previously warned the defendants that continued noncompliance could lead to sanctions, including striking their answer and entering default. Plaintiff served the required orders on Tian Tian Trading Inc. and sent them by email to Weiwei Lin after being unable to personally serve her. Neither defendant responded.
The court struck the defendants’ answer in its entirety and directed the clerk to enter certificates of default against both defendants. Judge Vyskocil allowed the plaintiff to seek a default judgment on its claims and set October 1, 2022, as the deadline for that motion.
The detailed version
- City Merchandise Inc. v. Tian Tian Trading Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09649
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 31, 2022
Background
City Merchandise Inc. asked the court to sanction Tian Tian Trading Inc. and Weiwei Lin for failing to comply with discovery obligations and court orders. After defense counsel was allowed to withdraw, the court ordered Tian Tian Trading Inc. to retain counsel because a corporation cannot appear without a lawyer. The defendants did not comply with that order, did not submit a required joint status letter, did not attend a court-ordered status conference, and did not otherwise participate in the case or discovery.
The plaintiff previously moved to strike the defendants’ answer and direct entry of default. The court denied that motion without prejudice and instead ordered the defendants to show why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Neither defendant appeared at the April 19, 2022, show-cause hearing. The plaintiff had personally served the relevant orders on Tian Tian Trading Inc. Because it could not personally serve Weiwei Lin, the court directed service by email. The plaintiff filed a certificate stating that it had emailed the orders to Weiwei Lin. The court gave the defendants one final opportunity to respond by April 22, 2022, but neither responded.
Court’s reasoning
Rule 37(b)(2)(A) allows a court to impose sanctions when a party fails to obey an order concerning discovery, including by striking pleadings. The court considered the defendants’ prolonged noncompliance, the repeated warnings about possible sanctions, the failure to participate in the action, and the fact that the case had been stalled for more than two years. The court concluded that striking the answer was warranted.
Because the answer was struck, the defendants were in default under Rule 55(a), which governs entry of default when a party fails to defend. The court did not enter a default judgment in this order; instead, it permitted the plaintiff to apply for one.
Disposition
The court struck the defendants’ answer in its entirety and directed the clerk to enter certificates of default against Tian Tian Trading Inc. and Weiwei Lin. The court permitted City Merchandise Inc. to file a motion for default judgment on each claim by October 1, 2022. The clerk was also directed to mail the order to the pro se defendants at their addresses of record.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.