Wu v. Sushi Nomado of Manhattan, Inc.

Background

Plaintiff Fen Biao Cai moved under Local Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of the court’s April 4, 2024 decision denying his motion for default judgment against Wei Loon Chan and Sushi Nomado of Manhattan, Inc. The opinion states that Chan had not appeared in the action and that Chan and Nomado had not appeared in the case in at least four years. The opinion also states that they were not named as defendants in Cai’s original case, which was later consolidated with this action.

Cai argued that the court had overlooked his compliance with the court’s Individual Rules when he filed the default-judgment motion. The court’s earlier filings had identified deficiencies, including the absence of a Clerk’s Certificate of Default and supporting documents for the proposed order to show cause. The court had given Cai additional opportunities to correct the filings, but the proposed order to show cause remained marked as deficient.

Legal Standard

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the court overlooked controlling legal authority or factual matters that could reasonably change its decision. A reconsideration motion cannot be used simply to relitigate an issue already decided.

The court also reiterated that a plaintiff is not automatically entitled to default judgment because a defendant failed to appear or respond. Whether to enter default judgment is within the trial court’s discretion.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected Cai’s argument that the proposed order to show cause had been properly filed. It found that the docket still identified the filing as deficient and that Cai had not explained why the proposed order was not attached and filed as an exhibit to the supporting declaration, as other required documents had been.

The court concluded that Cai had not shown that it overlooked controlling law or relevant facts when it denied default judgment. The court further stated that, even apart from the filing deficiency, Cai’s argument would not alter the earlier decision because default judgment was discretionary. The court relied on the case’s history, including what it described as deficient filings and repeated failures to comply with court orders.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiff Fen Biao Cai’s motion for reconsideration of the April 4, 2024 decision denying his motion for default judgment against Wei Loon Chan and Sushi Nomado of Manhattan, Inc. The Clerk of Court was requested to close docket entry 226.