The Restaurant Zone LLC v. Islamaj
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-02595
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In The Restaurant Zone LLC v. Islamaj, Judge Subramanian denied default judgment and dismissal, vacated a default, and extended service deadlines.
The Restaurant Zone LLC, Atelier Florian LLC, and the other defendants named in the action.
What happened
The Restaurant Zone LLC sued Shkelzen Islamaj and other defendants. The opinion focused on Atelier Florian LLC, which had appeared and opposed the plaintiff’s request for a judgment based on a party’s failure to respond.
The court found that Atelier Florian LLC’s default was not willful and that setting it aside would not unfairly harm the plaintiff. The court also concluded that the complaint plausibly alleges Atelier Florian LLC is a successor to Atelier Florian, which had signed the relevant search agreement.
Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion for default judgment and the defendants’ motion to dismiss, vacated the entry of default, and required Atelier Florian LLC to answer by September 6, 2023. The court extended the time to serve the other defendants, warning that claims against them would be dismissed without prejudice if service proof was not provided by August 25, 2023.
The detailed version
- The Restaurant Zone LLC v. Islamaj · No. 1:23-cv-02595
- Subramanian
- Aug. 17, 2023
Background
The Restaurant Zone LLC filed this action against Shkelzen Islamaj and other defendants. The opinion addresses three procedural issues: the plaintiff’s request for default judgment, the defendants’ request to dismiss, and service of the other defendants.
Atelier Florian LLC had been served with the complaint, appeared in the case, and opposed the plaintiff’s default-judgment motion less than one month after that motion was filed. The court considered whether Atelier Florian LLC’s default should be set aside. Although Atelier Florian LLC had not yet presented a defense with merit, the court found that its default was not willful and that setting aside the default would not prejudice the plaintiff.
Rulings
The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. It directed the Clerk to vacate the entry of default against Atelier Florian LLC and to terminate the default motion.
The court also denied the defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss. It held that the complaint plausibly alleges that Atelier Florian LLC is a successor to Atelier Florian, which was a party to the search agreement. The court stated that, under New York law, a successor corporation can be liable for its predecessor’s contract breaches. Atelier Florian LLC was ordered to answer the complaint by September 6, 2023. The Clerk was directed to terminate the cross-motion to dismiss.
Service on Other Defendants
Rather than dismissing the action as to the other defendants at that time, the court exercised its discretion to extend the service deadline. The plaintiff was required to serve those defendants and provide proof of service by August 25, 2023. If the plaintiff failed to do so, the complaint against those defendants would be dismissed without prejudice, meaning the opinion expressly left open the possibility of refiling.
Disposition
The plaintiff’s motion for default judgment was denied; the defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss was denied; the entry of default was vacated; and the time for service on the other defendants was extended subject to the stated deadline. The order was signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on August 17, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.