Treston Irby v. RN’D Distribution LLC and DistroKid LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UDSODCCU MSDENNYT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: TRESTON IRBY, DATE FILED: 1/6/20 26 Plaintiff, 1:25-cv-3355-MKV -against- ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT RN’D DISTRIBUTION LLC and DISTROKID LLC, Defendants. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint, which asserts claims against Defendant RN’D Distribution LLC (“RND”) for breach of a prior settlement agreement and violation of the Lanham Act [ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”)]. Plaintiff thereafter filed proof of service on RND [ECF No. 15]. RND, however, has never appeared in this action. Plaintiff obtained a Clerk’s Certificate of Default and filed a motion for a default judgment together with supporting papers [ECF Nos. 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; New York v. Green, 420 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2005) (explaining the two-step procedure for obtaining a default judgment). After carefully reviewing Plaintiff’s submissions, the Court scheduled a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion [ECF No. 35]. Plaintiff thereafter filed proof of service of the Court’s Order scheduling the hearing [ECF No. 37]. On January 5, 2026, the Court held the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment. RND did not appear. As set forth on the record at the hearing, Plaintiff adequately states a claim in the Complaint for breach of contract under New York law, which governs his prior settlement agreement with RND [ECF No. 1 at 49–52 (the “Settlement Agreement”) at 3]. See City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 137 (2d Cir. 2011) (explaining that on a motion for a default judgment, a court must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and determine whether they state a claim); 34-06 73, LLC v. Seneca Ins. Co., 39 N.Y.3d 44, 52, 198 N.E.3d 1282, 1287 (2022) (describing the elements of breach of contract under New York law); Compl. Ff 10, 11, 20-22. Plaintiff also states a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. See 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.Com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400, 407 (2d Cir. 2005); Compl. 27-29; id. at 4-5. Plaintiff has further established, with evidence, his entitlement to damages in the amount of $50,958.99 [ECF No. 30 (“Irby Aff.”) §§ 17, 26, 41-43]. See Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 87 (2d Cir. 2009); GMA Accessories, Inc. v. BOP, LLC, 765 F. Supp. 2d 457, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), aff'd sub nom. GMA Accessories, Inc. v. Elec. Wonderland, Inc., 558 F. App’x 116 (2d Cir. 2014). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth on the record at the January 5, 2026 hearing and in Plaintiff's submissions, the motion for a default judgment [ECF No. 27] is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that judgment is entered against RN’D Distribution LLC on Plaintiffs claims for breach of contract and violation of the Lanham Act, see Compl. 19-23, 24-37, in the amount of $50,958.99. The Court further awards Plaintiff post-judgment interest at the statutory rate and costs in the amount of $705.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1961; 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The Clerk of Court respectfully is requested to enter judgment, terminate all open motions, and close this case. SO ORDERED. Koy, Viyehero!l Date: January 6, 2026 Poa Mes Vaglag New York, NY United States District Judge