R&G Enterprises, Inc. v. Choi

S.D. New York

R&G Enterprises, Inc. v. Choi

DecidedOctober 7, 2022

Docket1:19-cv-11699

StatusUnknown

This text of R&G Enterprises, Inc. v. Choi (R&G Enterprises, Inc. v. Choi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

R&G Enterprises, Inc. v. Choi, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK R&GENTERPRISES,INC, SS Plaintiff, 19 CIVIL 11699 (PAE)(SN) -against- DEFAULT JUDGMENT SOO JEONG CHOI, et al., Defendants. wenn K

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated October 7, 2022, the motion for default judgment is granted. The parties’ failure to file written objections precludes appellate review of this decision. See Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F. 3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008); Small v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15,16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). The Court therefore declines to issue a certificate of appealability, and certifies that any appeal from the order would not be taken in in good faith; therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York October 7, 2022 RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerkof Court BY: HK MANGO Deputy Clerk

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 R&GENTERPRISES,INC, SS Plaintiff, 19 CIVIL 11699 (PAE)(SN) -against- DEFAULT JUDGMENT SOO JEONG CHOI, et al., Defendants. wenn K

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated October 7, 2022, the motion for default judgment is granted. The parties’ failure to file written objections precludes appellate review of this decision. See Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F. 3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008); Small v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15,16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). The Court therefore declines to issue a certificate of appealability, and certifies that any appeal from the order would not be taken in in good faith; therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York October 7, 2022 RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerkof Court BY: HK MANGO Deputy Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

R&G Enterprises, Inc. v. Choi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rg-enterprises-inc-v-choi-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack