Siva Nalabotu v. Omnia Investment Advisors LLC, William C. Overstreet, and Daniel J. Doxey

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: April 29, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-08660
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SIVA NALABOTU, Case No. 1:25-CV-8660-LGS Plaintiff, xPxRxxOxxPxOxxSxExxD DEFAULT v. JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT WILLIAM C. OMNIA INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC, OVERSTREET WILLIAM C. OVERSTREET, and DANIEL J. DOXEY, Defendants. Upon Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause for Default Judgment; the Declaration of J.R. Skrabanek in support; the Clerk’s Certificate of Default entered on March 17, 2026; the Affidavit of Service of the Complaint; the Affidavit confirming compliance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3931 and that Defendant William C. Overstreet is not an infant, incompetent person, or person in military service; the Certificate(s) of Service of the default- judgment papers; and the other papers and proceedings had herein; and the Court having found that Defendant William C. Overstreet was duly served, failed to appear, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint, and is in default; and the Court having further found that Plaintiff has established Defendant William C. Overstreet’s liability on Plaintiff’s claim for breach of guaranty And Defendant Overstreet having failed and fraud; it is hereby to appear at the show cause hearing on April 28, 2026; ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s application for a default judgment is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that default judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Siva Nalabotu and against Defendant William C. Overstreet on Plaintiff’s claims for breach of guaranty and fraud; and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff shall recover from Defendant William C. Overstreet the-totaLamount-of $———————eonssisting-ef: in an amount to be determi by Magistrate Judge Sarah (a) prinetpalinthe-amount-of $350,000-00; Netburn in a post-default judgment damages inquest.

b-the-dateiud . t--and-itis-furtl

interest-on-the-entire judgment amount atthe rate- provided by 28-CS.6 $196 Hronnthe-date-of ciad Lpaid-and-itis-furtl ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly in favor of Plaintiff on Claim Il in the Complaint, for breach of guaranty Siva Nalabotu and against Defendant William C. Overstreet; and it is further ORDERED that the Court finds no just reason for delay and directs entry of final on Claim Il in the Complaint, for breach of guaranty judgment against Defendant William C. Overstreet pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Dated: New York, New York a i. -T April 29 > 2026 Uhre Srares Desrmrer Jupce an "ancient common law axiom" that a defendant who defaults thereby admits all "well-pleaded" factual gations contained in the complaint. Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 246 (2d Cir. 2004) jurisdiction exists over Defendant Overstreet. The Complaint asserts a claim against Overstreet under 12(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, which authorizes nationwide service of process. 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a). The alleges that Overstreet is a citizen of Texas, which suffices for personal jurisdiction under the 1933 Act. Rio Tinto PLC, 332 F. Supp. 3d 786, 800 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Pendent personal jurisdiction over the state law clai fraud and breach of guaranty is proper because "the state claims derive from a common nucleus of operative □□ the federal claim. Sullivan v. UBS AG, 149 F.4th 206, 225 (2d Cir. 2025). respect to the claim for breach of guaranty (Claim Il), Delaware law applies because the Guaranty contains a choice of law provision. The Complaint adequately alleges that (1) a contract exists; (2) Overstreet ached contractual obligations; (3) Plaintiff was damaged thereby. See Connelly v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co 1271, 1278 n.28 (Del. 2016).