Balance Payments, Inc. d/b/a Balance v. Thread Studio LLC
- Denise Cote
- 1:23-cv-06379
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Balance Payments v. Thread Studio: Judge Cote denied counsel’s request to attend a default-judgment hearing by telephone or Zoom.
Balance Payments, Inc. d/b/a Balance and its counsel, whose request to attend the scheduled hearing remotely was denied; the provided text does not describe any ruling affecting Thread Studio LLC beyond the pending default-judgment proceedings.
What happened
In Balance Payments, Inc. d/b/a Balance v. Thread Studio LLC, the plaintiff asked to attend an upcoming hearing on its request for a final default judgment by telephone or Zoom.
The plaintiff said its lawyer, Benjamin H. Brodsky, lived and practiced in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and that remote attendance would preserve client resources. The plaintiff also said it did not expect to present evidence because it sought a fixed amount of damages.
Judge Denise Cote denied the request. The provided text does not state a reason for the denial.
The detailed version
- Balance Payments, Inc. d/b/a Balance v. Thread Studio LLC · No. 1:23-cv-06379
- Denise Cote
- Oct. 24, 2023
Background
Balance Payments, Inc. d/b/a Balance filed a motion asking for permission for its lawyer, Benjamin H. Brodsky, to attend by telephone or Zoom a November 3, 2023 hearing on the plaintiff’s request for final default judgment. The court had scheduled that hearing for 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 18B of the United States Courthouse in New York.
The plaintiff stated that it did not expect to make an evidentiary presentation because the damages it sought were liquidated, meaning the amount was allegedly fixed or readily calculable. It also stated that Brodsky lived and practiced in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and that remote attendance would preserve client resources.
Ruling
The filing bears the notation “Denied” dated October 24, 2023. Judge Denise Cote therefore denied the motion for leave to appear by telephone or Zoom. The provided text does not give the court’s reason for denying the motion and does not state how the default-judgment hearing itself was resolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.