Su et al v. Hailu Asian Bistro Inc. et al

Filing 46

ORDER: Plaintiff has filed a motion for a default judgment [ECF #42-44]. As required, Plaintiff attempted to serve the motion papers on the defaulting corporate Defendant, doing so by mail. See ECF #45. However, as the Court has previousl y noted, the restaurant is no longer in operation at the address to which Plaintiff mailed the motion papers. See ECF #37 at 1; ECF #41 at 4, n.1. Thus, it appears to the Court that service of the motion papers by mail at that address is n ot effective to put the corporate Defendant on notice of the pending motion. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff file a letter, no longer than three pages, on or before August 11, 2020 explaining why service of both the Complaint in this action and the papers concerning the default judgment motion on the corporate Defendant is proper. (Signed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on 8/4/2020) (mro)

Case 1:17-cv-10243-MKV Document 46 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 1

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 8/4/2020

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
YU HING SU, et al., on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

1:17-cv-10243 (MKV)

-against-

ORDER

HAILU ASIAN BISTRO, et al,
Defendants.
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff has filed a motion for a default judgment [ECF #42-44]. As required, Plaintiff
attempted to serve the motion papers on the defaulting corporate Defendant, doing so by mail.
See ECF #45. However, as the Court has previously noted, the restaurant is no longer in
operation at the address to which Plaintiff mailed the motion papers. See ECF #37 at 1; ECF #41
at 4, n.1. Thus, it appears to the Court that service of the motion papers by mail at that address is
not effective to put the corporate Defendant on notice of the pending motion. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff file a letter, no longer than three pages, on
or before August 11, 2020 explaining why service of both the Complaint in this action and the
papers concerning the default judgment motion on the corporate Defendant is proper.
SO ORDERED.

Date: August 4, 2020
New York, NY

_________________________________
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL
United States District Judge