Marcelo Burlon S.r.l. v. ailei fashion
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-11336
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Marcelo Burlon v. Ailei Fashion, Judge Broderick ordered more information about service before considering default judgment.
Marcelo Burlon S.R.L. and the defendants, because the plaintiff was required to provide additional information about service before the court addressed the proposed default judgment.
What happened
In Marcelo Burlon S.r.l. v. Ailei Fashion, et al., the plaintiff asked the court to issue an order leading to a default judgment and submitted supporting papers.
The court ordered the plaintiff to file briefing by October 7, 2022, addressing whether the defendants were properly served under the Hague Convention or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also required a declaration describing all efforts to find physical addresses for service, including the addresses found, how they were identified, efforts to verify them, and reasons for concluding that service at any address would not succeed.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not rule on the proposed default judgment in this order; he required the additional briefing and declaration by the stated deadline.
The detailed version
- Marcelo Burlon S.r.l. v. ailei fashion · No. 1:19-cv-11336
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 23, 2022
Background
The court was considering Plaintiff Marcelo Burlon S.R.L.’s proposed order to show cause for a default judgment and its supporting papers. The order does not state the underlying claims or explain the defendants’ responses.
Orders Concerning Service
The court ordered the plaintiff to file supplemental briefing by October 7, 2022, addressing whether the defendants had been properly served under the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, commonly called the Hague Convention, and/or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court also ordered the plaintiff to file, by the same date, a declaration describing all efforts to discover physical addresses for service on the defendants. The declaration must include a chart for each defendant identifying every potential address found, how each address was identified, and all efforts to investigate whether the address was accurate. The court listed examples including internet searches concerning the address or defendants, telephone calls to associated numbers, and in-person visits. The declaration must also identify who investigated each address, when the investigation occurred, and any relevant qualifications of the investigator. If the plaintiff concluded that service at an address would be unsuccessful, the declaration must explain the basis for that conclusion.
Disposition
The court ordered the supplemental briefing and declaration. This order did not state that the court granted or denied the proposed default judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.