Hosking v. New World Mortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 96

ORDER denying 95 : See attached order for details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 12/22/2009. c/ecf (Miller, Dina)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------X GARY HOSKING, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, ORDER Plaintiffs -againstNEW WORLD MORTGAGE, INC., and NEW WORLD CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------X LINDSAY, Magistrate Judge: Before the court is the plaintiffs' motion to compel the defendant New World Mortgage, Inc. to provide the plaintiffs with the last known addresses of the Kevin and Francis Leonard. In July 2007, Judge Spatt entered a default judgment against New World Mortgage, Inc. In September, the motion was vacated, New World Mortgage's counsel immediately filed a motion to withdraw. In March 2008, the court granted counsel's motion, but indicated that if New World Mortgage was unable to obtain new counsel in within thirty days, the court would entertain a motion to reenter judgment by default. New World Mortgage failed to obtain counsel and, on July 21, 2008, the court entered a default judgment against the company for the second time. Although the court has had contact with Laurence Miscall, an attorney in California who had previously represented the company, Mr. Miscal has made it clear that he no longer represents New World Mortgage or its officers. Accordingly, granting the plaintiff's instant motion against this defaulting defendant would be futile. Counsel for the plaintiffs has not indicated whether or not he attempted to contact Mr. Miscal for the addresses, but he certainly can seek to obtain those addresses from him through non-party discovery. Dated: Central Islip, New York December 22, 2009 SO ORDERED: CV 07-2200 (ADS)(ARL) /s/ ARLENE R. LINDSAY United States Magistrate Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?