Rovio Entertainment Corporation v. Ace Air Art Inflatable Decorations Store

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 24, 2022
Docket1:22-cv-04139
StatusUnknown

This text of Rovio Entertainment Corporation v. Ace Air Art Inflatable Decorations Store (Rovio Entertainment Corporation v. Ace Air Art Inflatable Decorations Store) 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
Rovio Entertainment Corporation v. Ace Air Art Inflatable Decorations Store, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROVIO ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, -against- 1:22-cv-04139 (JLR) ACE AIR ART INFLATABLE ORDER DECORATIONS STORE, et al., Defendants.

JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: On October 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 55.2(b). See ECF No. 29. The Court’s Individual Rule 3.O. requires that the plaintiff serve the motion for default judgment and supporting paperwork on the party against whom the default judgment is sought and file an affidavit of service on ECF within 14 days of the filing of the motion for default judgment. That time has now passed and Plaintiff has not filed such proof of service on the docket. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve Defendants in the manner specified in the Temporary Restraining Order, Paragraph IV (ECF No. 8) with (1) a copy of the motion for default judgment and all supporting papers; and (2) a copy of this Order by October 26, 2022. Plaintiff shall file proof of service by October 26, 2022. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file any opposition to the motion for default judgment by November 16, 2022. Defendants are cautioned that corporate entities may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel, see Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 2007), and where such an entity “repeatedly fails to appear by counsel, a default judgment may be entered against it,” Grace v. Bank Leumi Tr. Co. of N.Y., 443 F.3d 180, 192 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall appear and show cause before this Court on December 15, 2022 at 12:00 p.m. in the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007, in Courtroom 20B, why an order should not be issued granting a default judgment against Defendants. In the event that any Defendant appears or opposes the motion for default judgment prior to that date, the parties shall notify the Court promptly and the Court will adjourn that conference or treat it as an initial pretrial conference with respect to any such appearing Defendant. Dated: October 24, 2022 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

nited States District Judge

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

Related

Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Company Of New York
443 F.3d 180 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Lattanzio v. Comta
481 F.3d 137 (Second Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rovio Entertainment Corporation v. Ace Air Art Inflatable Decorations Store, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rovio-entertainment-corporation-v-ace-air-art-inflatable-decorations-store-nysd-2022.