Ryzhov v. $5
Ryzhov v. $5,379,876.94 In United States Currency Formerly on Deposit in Sunflower Bank, NA
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-01072
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ryzhov v. Malofeyev, Judge Furman ordered service and possible default-judgment steps, while warning of dismissal for missed deadlines.
Evgeny Ryzhov, Tsargrad Media, and Konstantin Malofeyev. Ryzhov received filing and service deadlines; Tsargrad Media faced a possible default-judgment proceeding; and the claims against Malofeyev faced dismissal if service was not properly documented or was insufficient.
What happened
In Ryzhov v. Malofeyev, Tsargrad Media appeared to be in default, and the court directed Evgeny Ryzhov to follow specific steps concerning that defendant. The court also required corrected proof that Konstantin Malofeyev had been served.
Ryzhov had three weeks to file any request for a default judgment against Tsargrad Media. He had to serve this order on Tsargrad Media within four business days and file proof of service within six business days. He also had two business days to file the correct affidavit showing service on Malofeyev.
Judge Jesse M. Furman warned that the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute if Ryzhov did not seek default judgment, and that the claims against Malofeyev would be dismissed if corrected proof of sufficient service was not filed. The court also denied special filing-fee status for an appeal, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ryzhov v. $5 · No. 1:23-cv-01072
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 30, 2024
Background
The order concerns service of process and the next steps in the case. The court stated that Defendant Tsargrad Media appeared to be in default. The court had previously set a deadline for Evgeny Ryzhov to serve Defendant Konstantin Malofeyev and warned that the claims against Malofeyev would be dismissed if Ryzhov did not file proof of service by January 26, 2024.
On January 18, 2024, Ryzhov filed a document identified as an affidavit of service on Malofeyev. The court stated that the filing appeared to duplicate an affidavit supporting a request for a clerk’s certificate of default as to Tsargrad Media.
Court’s orders
The court ordered Ryzhov to file any motion for default judgment against Tsargrad Media within three weeks. If such a motion is filed, the court said it will issue another order setting deadlines for opposition and reply and scheduling a hearing at which the parties would be required to explain their positions. The court warned that if no motion for default judgment is filed by the deadline, the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice.
The court also ordered Ryzhov to serve Tsargrad Media with a copy of the order using the alternate-service methods previously approved by the court. Service had to occur within four business days, and proof of service had to be filed within six business days.
Assuming the January 18 filing was a mistake, the court ordered Ryzhov to file the correct affidavit of service on Malofeyev within two business days. The court warned that it would dismiss the claims against Malofeyev without further notice if Ryzhov failed to do so or if the described service was insufficient.
Appeal-related ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied special filing-fee status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying merits of Ryzhov’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.