Brown v. Shades of Afrika
- Sarah Cave
- 1:22-cv-08994
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Brown v. Shades of Afrika, Judge Cave found service proper and ordered default-related filings after Shades filed no answer.
The order confirms that Shades of Afrika was properly served and directs Lamar Brown to pursue a certificate of default and a motion for default judgment because Shades had not filed an answer.
What happened
In Lamar Brown v. Shades of Afrika, the court questioned whether Brown had properly served Shades because the original proof of service did not list the service address. Brown responded that the process server had forgotten to include it and filed an updated proof of service.
The court ruled that the response and updated proof were enough to show proper service on December 8, 2022. The updated proof identified Shades’ principal address on file with California’s Secretary of State and stated that the summons was personally delivered to an authorized service agent. Because no answer appeared on the docket, the court ordered Brown to request a certificate of default by March 13, 2023, and file a motion for default judgment by March 27, 2023.
Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the order and stated that it resolved the court’s order requiring Brown to explain why service was proper. The order did not itself grant default judgment.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Shades of Afrika · No. 1:22-cv-08994
- Sarah Cave
- Mar. 6, 2023
Background
Lamar Brown sued Shades of Afrika on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. On December 9, 2022, Brown filed a proof of service stating that a process server had served the summons on an employee identified as “John Doe,” whom the process server said was authorized to accept service for Shades. The proof described Doe but did not identify the address where service occurred.
On February 1, 2023, the court ordered Brown to explain why service was proper. Brown responded that the process server had merely forgotten to include the service address in the original proof. Brown also filed an updated proof of service identifying the address as 1001 East 4th Street, Long Beach, California 90802.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the response and updated proof were sufficient to establish proper service. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 311(1), the court concluded that Brown had personally served an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service for Shades. The court also noted that the service address was Shades’ principal address on file with the California Secretary of State.
Disposition
The court determined that Shades had been served on December 8, 2022. Because no answer had been filed on the docket, the court ordered Brown to request a certificate of default from the Clerk of Court by March 13, 2023, and to file a motion for default judgment by March 27, 2023, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, the local rules, and the assigned district judge’s individual practices. The order resolved the order to show cause; it did not grant default judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.