Jackson v. Fastool, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-01358
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jackson v. Fastool, Judge Cronan ordered Jackson to seek default judgment or explain the case’s delay after Fastool failed to respond.
Jackson and Fastool, Inc.; the order required Jackson to pursue the default-judgment process and required Fastool to respond or appear.
What happened
In Jackson v. Fastool, Inc., Fastool did not appear or answer the complaint after waiving formal service. The court noted that Fastool’s answer was due May 12, 2023.
The court ordered Jackson to move for default judgment by June 19, 2023, or explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. It also set deadlines for Fastool’s opposition and Jackson’s reply, and scheduled a hearing for Fastool to explain why default judgment should not be entered.
Judge John P. Cronan cautioned that a defendant’s default does not automatically require a default judgment. The court said Jackson’s counsel should be prepared to address whether the complaint states a valid claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as service, communications with Fastool, and damages calculations.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Fastool, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01358
- John Cronan
- June 2, 2023
Background
Sylinia Jackson filed the complaint on February 17, 2023. Fastool returned a signed waiver of service, but the docket showed that Fastool had neither appeared nor answered. Its answer was due May 12, 2023.
Court’s Order
The court ordered Jackson to file a motion for default judgment by June 19, 2023, following the applicable local rules and the judge’s individual procedures, or to show why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Jackson also had to serve the motion and supporting papers on Fastool by June 19 and file proof of service by June 21. Fastool’s opposition was due July 3, and Jackson’s reply was due July 10.
The court ordered Fastool to appear at a July 12, 2023 hearing and explain why default judgment should not be entered. If Fastool did not appear, Jackson’s counsel had to be prepared to discuss communications with Fastool, Fastool’s possible intent to challenge the lawsuit, service of the court papers, why Fastool had notice of the hearing, and how Jackson calculated damages. If Fastool appeared and opposed the motion before the hearing, the hearing would also serve as the initial case-management conference.
The court separately ordered Jackson to send Fastool a copy of the order by overnight courier within one week and to file proof of that service within two business days after service.
Legal Standard and Disposition
The court explained that entering a default does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to default judgment. Default judgment may be entered only if the complaint’s factual allegations, taken as true, establish liability as a matter of law. The court said counsel should therefore be prepared to address whether the complaint alleges a valid cause of action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, including the issue discussed in cited decisions about whether certain websites qualify as places of public accommodation.
The order did not enter default judgment, decide liability, or resolve the validity of Jackson’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim. It instead set procedures and deadlines for a possible default-judgment motion and hearing.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.