Sun v. GTV Media Group Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-04529
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sun v. GTV Media Group, Judge Schofield vacated the default judgment against two defendants, allowing refiling after claims against others are resolved.
The ruling directly affected plaintiffs Weiguo Sun and the other plaintiffs, the defaulting defendants Lihong Wei Lafrenz and Voice of Guo Media, Inc., and the appearing defendants whose claims remained to be resolved. The default judgment against the two defaulting defendants was vacated, with refiling allowed after the other claims are resolved.
What happened
In Sun v. GTV Media Group Inc., the court addressed damages after an earlier default judgment against Lihong Wei Lafrenz and Voice of Guo Media, Inc. The damages request had been sent to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for a separate review.
Judge Cott recommended either combining the damages review with the trial against the defendants who appeared or vacating the default judgment so the damages request could be filed again later. The deadline for objections passed without any timely objections.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full. Judge Schofield vacated the default judgment against the two defaulting defendants without prejudice to refiling after the claims against the appearing defendants are resolved.
The detailed version
- Sun v. GTV Media Group Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-04529
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 5, 2023
Background
An earlier order entered default judgment against Lihong Wei Lafrenz and Voice of Guo Media, Inc., identified together as the “Defaulting Defendants.” The court then referred the plaintiffs’ request for damages to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for a post-default-judgment inquest, meaning a court process to determine the amount of damages after a defendant has failed to participate in the case.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
On September 9, 2022, Judge Cott issued a Report and Recommendation. He recommended either consolidating the damages inquest with the damages portion of the trial against the appearing defendants or vacating the existing default judgment and allowing the plaintiffs to refile after the claims against the appearing defendants were resolved.
The plaintiffs served the Defaulting Defendants with the Report on September 22, 2022. No timely objections were filed. When no timely objection is made, the district judge may review the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record.
Ruling
Judge Schofield found no clear error in Judge Cott’s recommendations and adopted the Report in full. The court vacated the default judgment against the Defaulting Defendants. The order states that the judgment was vacated without prejudice to refiling after the claims against the appearing defendants are resolved.
The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or state the amount of damages sought.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.