Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 12, 2022

245 Park Member LLC v. HNA Group Company Limited

Judge
John Koeltl
Docket
1:22-cv-05136
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In 245 Park Member v. HNA Group, Judge Wang ordered HNA to identify an authorized representative for a conference and warned of possible sanctions.

Who this affects

HNA Group (International) Company Limited was required to identify an authorized corporate representative and appear at the scheduled conference; defense counsel’s pending motion to withdraw was also relevant.

What happened

245 Park Member LLC sued HNA Group (International) Company Limited. The court had scheduled an in-person conference to address issues raised by defense counsel, including counsel’s pending request to withdraw.

The court ordered HNA to attend the conference with an authorized corporate representative and to provide that representative’s name by January 2, 2023. The order warned that failing to comply could lead to sanctions, a recommendation for default judgment, or a recommendation that HNA be held in contempt.

Judge Ona T. Wang issued the order on December 12, 2022. The order did not impose those consequences; it warned that they could follow if HNA failed to comply.

The detailed version

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

Case
245 Park Member LLC v. HNA Group Company Limited · No. 1:22-cv-05136
Judge
John Koeltl
Date
Dec. 12, 2022

Background

The court received an affidavit from defense counsel, the plaintiff’s proposed order to show cause, and a letter from defense counsel. The court had already scheduled an in-person conference for January 5, 2023, to address those issues and defense counsel’s pending motion to withdraw.

Order

Because defense counsel’s motion to withdraw was pending, the court directed HNA Group (International) Company Limited to appear at the conference with an authorized corporate representative. The defendant had to inform the court of the representative’s name by January 2, 2023.

Warning About Noncompliance

The court warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent authority. The court also warned that it could recommend default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 or recommend holding the defendant in contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(e), with appropriate sanctions.

Disposition

Judge Ona T. Wang entered the order directing the defendant to identify an authorized representative and appear at the conference. The order did not state that any sanction, default judgment, or contempt finding had already been imposed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.