Golomb Mercantile Co. v. Marks Paneth LLP

4 Citing cases

  1. Wandel v. Gao

    11:20-cv-03259 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2022)   Cited 4 times

    Courts in the Southern District frequently rely on the Old Republic framework while still vacating a default without an evidentiary hearing, in light of a defendant's sworn denial of service. See Caleb & Brown Pty. Ltd. v. Thompson, No. 20 Civ. 8612 (LAP), 2021 WL 4226183, at *3 n.7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2021); Crawford v. Nails on 7th By Jenny Inc., No. 18 Civ. 9849 (ER), 2020 WL 564059, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2020); Golomb Mercantile Co. LLC v. Marks Paneth LLP, 18 Civ. 3845 (JFK), 2019 WL 6790678, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2019). The Court believes this is the most sensible reading of Old Republic given that defaults are highly disfavored, so an evidentiary hearing would help ensure a court did not impose the “last . . . resort” remedy of a default judgment over a defendant's legitimate procedural objection.

  2. Remcoda, LLC v. Ridge Hill Trading (Pty) Ltd.

    21 Civ. 979 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    The Court finds these facts sufficient to satisfy the second prong of pleading alter ego liability, as other courts have found in analogous cases. In Golomb Mercantile Co. LLC v. Marks Paneth LLP, No. 18 Civ. 3845 (JFK), 2019 WL 6790678, at *8-10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2019), for example, the plaintiff alleged, like Remcoda does here, that two defendants misleadingly held themselves out to be a single entity, causing the plaintiff to do business with them to its detriment. Id. Specifically, the complaint alleged that in a sales pitch, the defendants emphasized how “[the dominant company] could help [the plaintiff] monetize its [intellectual property].” Id.

  3. Shanru Li v. Fleet N.Y. Metro. Reg'l Ctr.

    21-CV-5185 (PKC) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. May. 25, 2022)   Cited 11 times

    (“To the extent there are factual disputes regarding [d]efendant's knowledge of adequate service and its response deadline, these disputes are resolved in favor of [d]efendant as the defaulting party.”) (citing Golomb Mercantile Co. LLC v. Marks Paneth LLP, 18 Civ. 3845, 2019 WL 6790678, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2019)).

  4. Berrocal v. Sheet Music Now, Inc.

    1:19-CV-5123 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2020)   Cited 4 times

    To the extent there are factual disputes regarding Defendant's knowledge of adequate service and its response deadline, these disputes are resolved in favor of Defendant as the defaulting party. See Golomb Mercantile Co. LLC v. Marks Paneth LLP, 18-CV-3845, 2019 WL 6790678, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2019) ("Although the Court is skeptical that [Defendant] was wholly unaware that [Plaintiff] initiated a civil action against [Defendants], the Court resolves the issues in favor of [Defendant], especially where, as here, [Defendant] merely seeks to vacate entry of default—not default judgment—and this action is still in its earliest procedural stage."). Under Defendant's version of the facts, at most, Defendant neglected its duty to further investigate the propriety of service and its obligation to respond to the Complaint.