Campbell v. Isolator Fitness, Inc.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:23-cv-02286
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Campbell v. Isolator Fitness, Judge Moses denied Jovan Campbell’s default-judgment motion without prejudice because required service was not shown.
Jovan Campbell’s request for default judgment was denied without prejudice because she did not show that she had served the required papers on Isolator Fitness, Inc. The underlying Americans with Disabilities Act claim was not decided, and Campbell was permitted to renew the motion after proper service by November 3, 2023.
What happened
In Campbell v. Isolator Fitness, Inc., Jovan Campbell alleged that Isolator Fitness’s website was inaccessible to blind and visually impaired customers, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Isolator did not file an answer, and the Clerk issued a certificate of default.
Campbell asked for a default judgment, but she did not show that she had served Isolator with the required papers at its last known business address. The court ordered her three times to provide proof of service, but she did not do so.
Judge Barbara Moses denied the default-judgment motion without prejudice to renewal after proper service under Local Civil Rule 55.2(c). She required Campbell to complete service and renew the motion by November 3, 2023; the court did not decide the underlying accessibility claim.
The detailed version
- Campbell v. Isolator Fitness, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02286
- Barbara Moses
- Oct. 3, 2023
Background
Jovan Campbell sued Isolator Fitness, Inc., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. She alleged that Isolator’s website was not accessible to blind and visually impaired customers and therefore violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Campbell filed proof that the summons and complaint had been served on Diana Irineo, identified as a manager for Isolator. Isolator did not file an answer or otherwise respond, and the Clerk later issued a certificate of default.
Campbell moved for default judgment. Before filing that motion, the court had reminded her that Local Civil Rule 55.2(c) required her to mail the default papers to Isolator at its last known address. Campbell did not file proof that she had done so.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 uses a two-step process for default judgments. First, the Clerk may enter a default when a defendant fails to defend. Second, the court may enter a default judgment that converts the defendant’s failure to defend into a final judgment and awards any relief the court determines is appropriate.
Local Civil Rule 55.2(c) requires an application for default judgment to include the Clerk’s certificate of default, a copy of the claim to which no response was made, and a proposed judgment. The rule also requires service of the motion and related papers on a nonappearing defendant. The court explained that strict compliance with applicable procedural rules is required before a default-judgment motion will be granted.
The court had ordered Campbell three separate times to serve Isolator with the complaint, certificate of default, default-judgment motion and supporting papers, proposed order, and the court’s latest order. Campbell did not comply. Because of her repeated failure to follow the local rule and the court’s orders, the court declined to excuse the missing service.
Disposition
The court denied Campbell’s motion for default judgment without prejudice to renewal after service was completed in accordance with Local Civil Rule 55.2(c). Campbell was required to complete the service and renew the motion by November 3, 2023. The Clerk was directed to close the motion and mail a copy of the order to Isolator.
The order did not decide whether Isolator’s website violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, determine liability, or award relief.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.