Miller v. AFA NYC, LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-06880
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Miller v. AFA NYC, LLC, Judge Cronan ordered Miller to seek default judgment or explain why the case should not be dismissed.
Kimberly Miller and AFA NYC, LLC; the order also addressed the proposed class action Miller brought on behalf of similarly situated persons.
What happened
In Miller v. AFA NYC, LLC, Kimberly Miller sued AFA NYC, LLC, which was served with the complaint but had not appeared or answered by October 12, 2022.
The court ordered Miller to file a motion for default judgment by October 31 or explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. It also ordered AFA NYC, LLC to appear at a December 14 hearing and explain why default judgment should not be entered, and required Miller to serve the order on the company.
Judge John P. Cronan did not enter default judgment or decide whether Miller had established liability. He directed the parties to be prepared to address whether the complaint states a valid claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and, if necessary, to discuss case management.
The detailed version
- Miller v. AFA NYC, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-06880
- John Cronan
- Oct. 12, 2022
Background
Kimberly Miller filed the complaint on August 12, 2022. AFA NYC, LLC was served on August 30, 2022, and its answer was due on September 20, 2022. The court stated that, as of October 12, AFA NYC, LLC had neither appeared nor answered.
Orders concerning default judgment
The court ordered Miller, by October 31, 2022, either to move for default judgment under the applicable local rules or to show cause—that is, explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Miller also had to serve the motion and supporting papers on AFA NYC, LLC by October 31 and file proof of service by November 2. AFA NYC, LLC could oppose the motion by November 16, and Miller could reply by November 23.
The court also ordered AFA NYC, LLC to appear at a telephonic hearing on December 14, 2022, and explain why default judgment should not be entered. If the company did not appear, Miller’s counsel had to be prepared to discuss communications with the company, service and notice, the alleged illegal conduct, and the method for calculating damages. If AFA NYC, LLC appeared and opposed the motion before the hearing, the hearing would also serve as the initial case-management conference.
Americans with Disabilities Act issue
The court explained that entering a default against a defendant does not automatically require entry of default judgment. Default judgment may be entered only if liability is established as a matter of law when the complaint’s factual allegations are treated as true. The court therefore directed counsel to be prepared to address whether the complaint alleges a valid cause of action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, including authorities discussing whether certain websites qualify as places of public accommodation.
Disposition
The court did not enter default judgment, decide liability, or rule on the validity of the Americans with Disabilities Act claim in this order. It issued scheduling, service, and show-cause directives and required Miller to serve AFA NYC, LLC with the order by overnight courier within one week, followed by proof of service within two business days.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.