Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Galvis
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-09372
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Galvis, Judge Ho set deadlines and a hearing on a default-judgment motion but did not decide it.
Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC, Fortitude Ventures III LLC, and any defendant required to appear at the May 7, 2024, hearing.
What happened
In Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Galvis, the plaintiff asked for a default judgment on March 12, 2024. A default judgment is a judgment requested when a defendant has not defended the case.
The court ordered Fortitude Ventures III LLC to file any opposition by April 12, 2024. It also ordered a defendant to appear on May 7, 2024, and explain why a default judgment should not be entered. The plaintiff must serve the motion and the order by overnight courier and file proof of service by March 18, 2024.
Judge Dale E. Ho did not grant or deny the default-judgment motion. The order instead set deadlines, required a hearing, and explained that the hearing could become an initial pretrial conference if a defendant appeared or opposed the motion.
The detailed version
- Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Galvis · No. 1:23-cv-09372
- Ho
- Mar. 13, 2024
Background
On March 12, 2024, Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC filed a motion asking for a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 55.2(b). A default judgment is a judgment that may be entered when a defendant has not defended the case. The order does not itself decide whether a default judgment should be entered.
Orders and Deadlines
The court ordered Defendant Fortitude Ventures III LLC to file any opposition to the motion by April 12, 2024. The court cautioned that a company may appear in federal court only through a licensed lawyer and stated that a default judgment may be entered against a company that repeatedly fails to appear through counsel.
The court also ordered a defendant to appear and show cause on May 7, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, why a default judgment should not be entered against that defendant. Unless the court ordered otherwise, the conference was to be held by telephone. The plaintiff had to file a proposed default-judgment order electronically by April 30, 2024, using the filing event identified by the court.
The order provided that if a defendant appeared, opposed the motion, or sought a late extension of time to respond to the complaint before the hearing, the conference would be treated as the initial pretrial conference for that appearing defendant. The parties would then have to follow the procedures in the court's January 9, 2024, order, including submitting a joint letter and proposed case-management plan by the Thursday before the conference.
Service Requirement and Disposition
The court ordered the plaintiff to serve the defendant, by overnight courier and within one business day after filing each document, with the motion for default judgment and supporting papers, as well as a copy of this order. The plaintiff had to file proof of service by March 18, 2024.
Judge Dale E. Ho entered a scheduling and procedural order concerning the default-judgment motion. The court did not grant or deny that motion in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.