Hall v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.

S.D. New York

Hall v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 20, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-03387·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JESSICA BROOKE HALL, Case No.: 21-cv-3387 (JPC) Plaintiff, v. MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT SCORES HOLDING COMPANY, INC., CLUB AZURE LLC, HARVEY OSHER, and JOHN DOE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARK YACKOW, Defendants.

Plaintiff, JESSICA BROOKE HALL, by and through her attorneys, Danny Grace PLLC, hereby moves the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) to enter default judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants CLUB AZURE LLC and HARVEY OSHER on the grounds that said defendants failed to appear, answer, or otherwise defend against the First Amended Complaint dated February 4, 2022.

Dated: April 12, 2022 Dated:

/s/ Athena Pantelopoulos, Esq Danny Grace PLLC 225 Broadway, Suite 1200 New York, NY 10007 Attorneys for Plaintiff The motion is denied without prejudice. Where some, but not all, Defendants have appeared to defend an action, "the preferred practice is to withhold granting default until the trial of the action on the merits against the remaining defendants.” v. Weber, No. 19 Civ. 1093 (JPC), 2021 WL 4480998, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2021); see also, e.g., Temache v. Tunnel Taxi Mgmt., LLC, 354 F. Supp. 3d 149, 156 (E.D.N.Y. 2019).

sooner, = □□ ofCD,_

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JESSICA BROOKE HALL, Case No.: 21-cv-3387 (JPC) Plaintiff, v. MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT SCORES HOLDING COMPANY, INC., CLUB AZURE LLC, HARVEY OSHER, and JOHN DOE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARK YACKOW, Defendants.

Plaintiff, JESSICA BROOKE HALL, by and through her attorneys, Danny Grace PLLC, hereby moves the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) to enter default judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants CLUB AZURE LLC and HARVEY OSHER on the grounds that said defendants failed to appear, answer, or otherwise defend against the First Amended Complaint dated February 4, 2022.

Dated: April 12, 2022 Dated:

/s/ Athena Pantelopoulos, Esq Danny Grace PLLC 225 Broadway, Suite 1200 New York, NY 10007 Attorneys for Plaintiff The motion is denied without prejudice. Where some, but not all, Defendants have appeared to defend an action, "the preferred practice is to withhold granting default until the trial of the action on the merits against the remaining defendants.” v. Weber, No. 19 Civ. 1093 (JPC), 2021 WL 4480998, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2021); see also, e.g., Temache v. Tunnel Taxi Mgmt., LLC, 354 F. Supp. 3d 149, 156 (E.D.N.Y. 2019).

sooner, = □□ ofCD,_

Hall v. Scores Holding Company, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Hall v. Scores Holding Company, Inc. (Hall v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related