Keung v. Hoiphone 88 Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-06697
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Keung v. Hoiphone 88, Judge Carter ordered defendants to explain their late response or face possible default.
Hoiphone 88 Inc. and 31-33 Market Realty Corp. were ordered to explain their failure to respond on time. Lin Kwok Keung was directed to serve the order on Hoiphone 88 and file proof of service.
What happened
In Keung v. Hoiphone 88 Inc., Lin Kwok Keung sued Hoiphone 88 Inc. and 31-33 Market Realty Corp. The defendants were served with the complaint in September 2021 and were required to respond by October 4, 2021.
Neither defendant responded by that deadline. Only 31-33 Market Realty had formally appeared, and its letter said that there had been no discussions with the plaintiff’s counsel and that Hoiphone 88’s counsel had not responded.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered each defendant to file, by October 31, 2022, a motion explaining why a late answer should be allowed and why the court should not enter default. He also directed Keung to serve the order on Hoiphone 88 and file proof of service by October 21, 2022.
The detailed version
- Keung v. Hoiphone 88 Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06697
- Andrew Carter
- Oct. 19, 2022
Background
Lin Kwok Keung filed the complaint on August 9, 2021, against Hoiphone 88 Inc. doing business as T-Mobile Store #5341 and 31-33 Market Realty Corp. Both defendants were served on September 13, 2021, making October 4, 2021, their deadline to answer or otherwise respond.
What the Court Considered
The court received a letter from Keung and 31-33 Market Realty stating that no discussions had occurred between Keung’s counsel and opposing counsel, and that Keung had not heard back from counsel for Hoiphone 88. As of the order, neither defendant had responded to the complaint. Only 31-33 Market Realty had filed a notice of appearance.
Order
Because the defendants’ response deadline had passed by a significant amount of time, the court ordered each defendant to file a motion of no more than eight pages by October 31, 2022. Each motion had to explain, under the standards discussed in Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, why the defendant should be permitted to file a late answer and why the court should not enter default. Default is a procedural consequence that may follow when a defendant fails to respond to a complaint.
The court also directed Keung to serve a copy of the order on Hoiphone 88 by October 21, 2022, and file proof of that service. The order did not decide the claims in the complaint or enter default.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.