Opinion
21-CV-362 (JPO)
03-28-2022
JOSUE PAGUADA, Plaintiff, v. LONGCAP LAMSON PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER
J. PAUL OETKEN, DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff has moved for default judgment. (See Dkt. No. 12.) “[A] court may not properly enter a default judgment unless it has jurisdiction over the person of the party against whom the judgment is sought, which also means that he must have been effectively served with process.” Doe v. Alsaud, 12 F.Supp.3d 684, 687 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Plaintiff has not filed proof that he properly served the complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1) provides that “[a] summons must be served with a copy of the complaint, ” and Plaintiff's affidavit of service states only that his provider “served the summons.” (Dkt. No. 5 at 1.) See United States v. John, No. 18-CV-5045, 2020 WL 5536830, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2020), report and recommendation adopted as modified, No. 18-CV-5045, 2020 WL 4915371 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2020).
In addition, Plaintiff has not properly served the motion for default judgment. “[A] motion for default judgment will not be granted unless the party making that motion adheres to . . . local and individual rules.” J&J Sports Prods. Inc. v. La Reina Del Sur Rest. & Bar Inc., No. 15-CV-6546, 2016 WL 11544146, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2016). Local Rule 55.2 provides that the motion, and all papers submitted in support of the motion, “shall simultaneously be mailed to the party against whom a default judgment is sought at . . . the last known business address of such party (if a person other than an individual).” Further, “[p]roof of such mailing shall be filed with the Court.” Id. Plaintiff has not filed such proof.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is denied without prejudice and with leave to renew.
SO ORDERED.