The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Underwriters at Lloyd's
The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (Lloyd's London)
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-00734
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, Judge Furman required Travelers to brief whether service was proper before setting a new default-judgment deadline.
The Travelers Indemnity Company must address whether it properly served Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (Lloyd’s London); the default-judgment process remains pending.
What happened
In The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, the plaintiff was required to seek a default judgment by March 26, 2024, but filed only a request for a Clerk’s Certificate of Default.
The Clerk’s Office found that request deficient, including because service on the defendant was not properly completed. The court explained that a default judgment cannot be entered unless the defendant was effectively served.
The court ordered the plaintiff to submit a letter brief about service by April 5, 2024. Judge Furman said the court would set another deadline for a default-judgment motion if it later concluded that service was proper.
The detailed version
- The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Underwriters at Lloyd's · No. 1:24-cv-00734
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 29, 2024
Background
The court had previously ordered The Travelers Indemnity Company to file any motion for default judgment by March 26, 2024. A default judgment is a judgment entered when a party has not defended the case. Travelers did not file that motion by the deadline. Instead, it filed a request for a Clerk’s Certificate of Default, which formally records a party’s failure to respond.
The Clerk’s Office found the request deficient, stating among other things that service had not been properly effectuated. Service of process is the formal delivery of the lawsuit papers that gives a defendant notice and allows the court to exercise authority over that defendant.
Court’s Action
The court stated that it could not enter a default judgment unless it had jurisdiction over the defendant, which required effective service of process. The court did not decide whether service was proper in this order.
The court ordered Travelers to submit a letter brief addressing whether service on Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (Lloyd’s London) was proper no later than April 5, 2024. The court stated that it would set another deadline for Travelers’s motion for default judgment if or when it concluded that service was proper.
Disposition
The order required a letter brief and deferred setting a new default-judgment deadline. It did not grant or deny a motion for default judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.