Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 13, 2023

Assure Global, LLC v. Anderson

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:21-cv-05785
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Assure Global v. Anderson, Judge Liman deferred default judgment against Axxeum and found the facts did not support default against Anderson.

Who this affects

Assure Global, LLC must decide whether to continue litigating against Aaron Anderson. Axxeum, LLC did not receive an immediate default judgment, and Anderson remains able to litigate the breach-of-contract claim.

What happened

Assure Global, LLC moved for default judgment against Aaron Anderson and Axxeum, LLC on its breach-of-contract claim.

The court said the amended complaint and related facts supported default judgment against Axxeum, but it declined to enter that judgment because Anderson could continue litigating and potentially obtain a result that conflicted with it. The court also said the facts did not support entering default against Anderson based on an alter-ego theory.

Judge Lewis J. Liman directed Assure Global to tell the court by June 21, 2023, whether it intended to continue litigating its case against Anderson.

The detailed version

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

Case
Assure Global, LLC v. Anderson · No. 1:21-cv-05785
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
June 13, 2023

Background

Assure Global moved for a default judgment against Aaron Anderson and Axxeum, LLC on the breach-of-contract claim in its amended complaint. Neither defendant responded to the motion. At the June 8, 2023 hearing, counsel appeared for Assure Global, Anderson appeared without counsel, and no counsel appeared for Axxeum.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that the amended complaint and relevant facts supported a default judgment against Axxeum on the contract claim. But the court declined to enter that judgment at that time. In a case with multiple defendants, entering judgment against a defendant who defaulted while another defendant continues to litigate can create inconsistent judgments. Here, Anderson’s liability allegedly depended in part on Axxeum’s underlying liability. If Axxeum had not breached the insurance policy, Anderson could not be liable as Axxeum’s alter ego. Anderson therefore could challenge whether Axxeum breached the policy, and a judgment against Anderson could conflict with a default judgment against Axxeum.

The court also stated that the facts did not support Assure Global’s request for an entry of default against Anderson on the contract claim under an alter-ego theory.

Ruling and Next Step

The court found that a default judgment against Axxeum was premature and deferred entering judgment on liability and damages. It directed Assure Global to inform the court by June 21, 2023, whether it intended to continue litigating the case against Anderson.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.