Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-09700
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cullum v. Wyndham, Judge Abrams denied Plaintiffs’ request to seek default judgment because they had to amend their complaint and properly serve Defendants.
Sandra L. Cullum and Deirdre Saleh must amend their complaint within 60 days of the December 20, 2022 order and properly serve the defendants. The defendants are not required to respond to the original complaint.
What happened
In Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp., Sandra L. Cullum and Deirdre Saleh asked for permission to seek a judgment because several defendants had not appeared or responded. They said they had served the defendants by certified mail between November 25 and November 29, 2022.
The court denied the request because an earlier order required the plaintiffs to amend their complaint before the defendants had to respond. The court also said certified-mail service was not permitted under the federal rules and that the defendants had to be served under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint within 60 days of the earlier order. The defendants were not required to respond to the original complaint.
The detailed version
- Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-09700
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 28, 2022
Background
On December 20, 2022, the court ordered Sandra L. Cullum and Deirdre Saleh to amend their complaint and excused the defendants from responding until an amended complaint was filed. On December 23, the plaintiffs asked for permission to seek default judgment against several defendants. A default judgment is a judgment based on a party’s failure to respond or participate as required.
The plaintiffs asserted that they had served the defendants by certified mail between November 25 and November 29, 2022, and that the defendants had not appeared or responded to the complaint.
Ruling
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request in light of the December 20 order. It directed them to amend the complaint within 60 days of that order and stated that the defendants were not required to respond to the original complaint.
The court also stated that service by certified mail was not permitted under the federal rules. It directed the plaintiffs to serve the defendants consistently with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The court referred to decisions stating that certified-mail service was not permitted for individuals and that serving a corporation solely by certified mail was insufficient.
The court additionally advised the plaintiffs that they might consult the New York Legal Assistance Group’s legal clinic for people representing themselves in federal civil cases. The clinic was not part of or operated by the court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.