K2M Design, Inc. v. Schmidt Consulting Group, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-03069
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In K2M Design v. Schmidt Consulting, Judge Vyskocil ordered briefing on whether service on Germany-located defendant Peter K. Schmidt was proper before default.
K2M Design, Inc. and Dr. Peter K. Schmidt; K2M Design must provide additional briefing before the court considers the proposed default certificate.
What happened
K2M Design, Inc. asked the court to issue a clerk’s certificate of default against Dr. Peter K. Schmidt. The court noted that Schmidt is located in Germany and that it was unclear whether K2M properly served him.
The court ordered K2M to file a letter brief of no more than five pages by December 12, 2022. The brief must provide legal support for K2M’s claim that service was proper and address an earlier Southern District of New York decision stating that service through the Central Authority is the only way an American plaintiff may serve a German defendant.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil did not decide whether service was proper or issue the requested certificate of default. Instead, she ordered K2M to provide additional briefing on that issue.
The detailed version
- K2M Design, Inc. v. Schmidt Consulting Group, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03069
- Vyskocil
- Nov. 22, 2022
Background
On November 18, 2022, K2M Design, Inc. filed a proposed clerk’s certificate of default against Dr. Peter K. Schmidt. The court stated that it remained unclear whether Schmidt, who is located in Germany, had been properly served.
Court’s Order
The court ordered K2M Design to file a letter brief of no more than five pages by December 12, 2022. The brief must provide legal authority supporting K2M Design’s claim that service on Schmidt was properly completed. It must also specifically address a prior Southern District of New York decision that concluded service through the Central Authority is the only means by which an American plaintiff may serve a German defendant.
Disposition and Significance
The order required additional briefing; it did not decide whether service on Schmidt was valid and did not issue the proposed clerk’s certificate of default. The opinion therefore addressed a service-related procedural issue rather than the underlying dispute between the parties.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.