Haywood v. Ruffin

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: June 24, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-07818
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TRINEZE LYNETTE HAYWOOD, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-07818 (JLR) -against- DEFAULT JUDGMENT KECIE ANCAR and DORIS ANCAR, Defendants.

JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: On May 28, 2025, Plaintiff Trineze Lynette Haywood (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for a default judgment (the “Motion”) against Defendants Kecie Ancar and Doris Ancar (“Defendants”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 55.2(b). See Dkt. 30. The Court subsequently ordered Defendants to appear before the Court on June 24, 2025, and show cause why an order should not be issued granting a default judgment against them. See Dkt. 36. Defendants did not appear at the scheduled hearing, have never appeared in this action, have not responded to the Complaint despite being provided with extensions to respond, and have not otherwise communicated with the Court or Plaintiff. The Court having considered Plaintiff’s Motion and supporting papers, and for the reasons stated on the record at the default judgment hearing on June 24, 2025, it is hereby ORDERED that judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants as to Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for civil battery; second cause of action for civil assault; and seventh cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. By separate order, the Court will refer this action to the assigned Magistrate Judge for a damages inquest. Plaintiff’s counsel admitted during the default judgment hearing that his memorandum of law in support of Plaintiff’s Motion, see Dkt. 33, was almost entirely copied, without attribution, from First Bank & Trust v. Coventina Construction Corp., No. 18-cv-06648 (NGG) (VMS), 2019 WL 4120363 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 4089393 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2019). As Plaintiff moves through the damages inquest phase of this case, counsel is reminded of the Court’s admonition at the default judgment hearing that such sanctionable plagiarism will not be tolerated. See, e.g., Lohan v. Perez, 924 F. Supp. 2d 447, 460 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (fining counsel for filing an opposition brief that was taken from unidentified, unattributed sources). Plaintiff shall serve Defendants with (1) a copy of the motion for default judgment and all supporting papers; and (2) a copy of this Order within two business days of the filing of this Order. Within two business days of service, Plaintiffs must file proof of such service on the docket. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion at Dkt. 30. Dated: June 24, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED. Laer Ke J IFERL. hehe United States District Judge