Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 10, 2023

Hong v. Mommy's Jamaican Market Corp.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:20-cv-09612
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Hong v. Mommy’s Jamaican Market, Judge Liman scheduled a hearing on Hong’s motion challenging an order that vacated a default judgment.

Who this affects

Sun Yeul Hong and defendants Mommy’s Jamaican Market Corp., Kap Won Kim, Myong Su Kim, and Dae Kyu Kim.

What happened

In Hong v. Mommy’s Jamaican Market Corp., Sun Yeul Hong asked the court to set aside its December 22, 2021 order vacating the entry of default judgment.

The court scheduled an evidentiary hearing and oral argument for May 18, 2023. It directed each party to submit a letter by May 16 describing any evidence the party intended to present. The parties would not be allowed to argue their pending partial summary-judgment motion at that hearing.

Judge Lewis J. Liman’s order did not decide Hong’s motion. It set procedures for addressing disputed factual issues and scheduled the hearing.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hong v. Mommy's Jamaican Market Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-09612
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
May 10, 2023

Background

Sun Yeul Hong filed a motion asking the court to set aside its December 22, 2021 order, which had vacated the entry of default judgment. The opinion states that Hong did not describe the motion as one brought under Rule 60(b), the federal rule governing certain requests for relief from a judgment or order. The court said that principles applicable to Rule 60(b) motions supported holding a hearing on disputed factual issues here as well.

Order

The court scheduled an evidentiary hearing and oral argument on Hong’s motion for May 18, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 15C of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse. Each party had to file a letter by 5:00 p.m. on May 16 identifying any evidence the party intended to present at the hearing.

The court also stated that the parties would not be permitted to make argument concerning the pending partial motion for summary judgment. The order scheduled further proceedings and did not grant or deny Hong’s motion to set aside the earlier order.

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.