Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Dec. 8, 2022

Cawthon v. Zeng

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:22-cv-02895
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cawthon v. Zeng, Judge Cronan directed the plaintiff to address whether default-judgment proceedings should pause during a related appeal.

Who this affects

Scott Cawthon was directed to inform the court whether he believed the default-judgment proceedings should be stayed. The order concerned proceedings against Jinsheng Zeng, who the opinion states resides in China.

What happened

In Cawthon v. Zeng, the court addressed a procedural issue involving service by email on a defendant residing in China. The validity of that type of service was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a related case.

The court directed the plaintiff to tell the court by December 9, 2022 whether proceedings seeking a default judgment should be stayed, or paused, until the Second Circuit ruled. The order did not itself stay the proceedings or decide whether email service was valid.

Judge John P. Cronan issued the order on December 8, 2022. The order did not grant or deny a motion, enter judgment, or resolve the underlying dispute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cawthon v. Zeng · No. 1:22-cv-02895
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Dec. 8, 2022

Background

The opinion concerns whether default-judgment proceedings should be paused while the Second Circuit considers the validity of serving by email a defendant residing in China. The court identified a related interlocutory appeal concerning that service issue.

Court’s Order

The court directed Plaintiff Scott Cawthon to inform the court by December 9, 2022 of his position on whether the default-judgment proceedings in this case should be stayed pending the Second Circuit’s decision in the related appeal. The order did not decide whether service by email was valid and did not itself stay the default-judgment proceedings.

Disposition

The court issued a procedural directive and did not grant or deny a motion, dismiss the case, or enter default judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.