136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC v. Razinski ( 2024 )

USDC SDNY _ DOCUMENT BAKER, LESHKO, SALINE & DRAPEAU, LLP ELECTRONICALLY FILE! Attorneys for Plaintiff One North Lexington Avenue DATE FILED:__3/4/2024 □ White Plains, New York 10601-1712 914.681.9500 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Page 2 136 FIELD POINT CIRCLE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, 21 Civ. 11076 GHR) Plaintiff, -against- NOTICE OF MOTION ALEXANDER RAZINSKI, TANYA RAZINSKI, and INVAR INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants. COUNSELORS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Mitchell J. Baker, sworn to February 13, 2024, plaintiff 136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, Inc. will move this Court, at the Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, Courtroom 12B, at a date and time designated by this Court, for an Order pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 41(6) granting 136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC a default judgment in its favor against defendant Invar International Holding Company, Inc. for its failure to prosecute this action, (2) directing that a hearing be held for a determination of damages, and (3) together with such other, further and different relief this Court deems just. Dated: White Plains, New York Dated: White Plains, New York February 15, 2024 BAKER, LESHKO, SALINE & DRAPEAU, LLP Attorneys for pe By i | db Kati dle To: Alexander Razinski Post Office Box 8184 White Plains, New York 10602 (Via ECF and Federal Express) Tanya Razinski Post Office Box 8184 White Plains, New York 10602 (Via ECF and Federal Express) to Rule 4.111 of the Court’s Default Judgment Procedure, a plaintiff's application for default judgment must inter alia, “whether, if the default is applicable to fewer than all of the defendants, the Court may appropriatel a default judgment on the issue of damages prior to resolution of the entire action.” Indiv. R. & Pracs. in Civ. Ce A. In its default judgment motion, Plaintiff avers that “[t]he claim asserted against [defaulting] Defendant Inv: ational Holding[s]” (“Invar”) “is premised upon a guarantee of the underlying debt due by the [non-defaulting ski Defendants],” ECF No. 72-1 4 29, and “ask[s] that the damages due to Plaintiff by Invar [] be assessed at the underlying action.” /d. 434. Indeed, pursuant to a May 17, 2012 Guaranty Agreement between Invar and Plain agreed to “absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably guarantee[] to [Plaintiff] and its successors, endorsees, and assigns the full, complete and timely payment, performance and satisfaction of each and every one of t! and obligations of either or both of the Razinskis under” certain transaction documents. ECF No. 72-5 § 1.1. the case involves multiple defendants, entry of a default instead of a default judgment is, in the Court’s view at this juncture. Schneider vy. Cuddebackville Fire Dep’t, 11-Civ. 1499 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y. June 27 (rejecting Order to Show Cause for Default Judgment (citing Diarama Trading Co. v. J. Walter Thompson □□□□ Civ. 2950 (DAB), 2002 WL 31545845, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2002) (declining to adjudicate motions for dé on the ground that “the liability of one defendant is indeed likely to depend on whether others are ultimately to be liable”)). As Plaintiff notes, see ECF No. 72-1 § 24, on January 31, 2024, the Clerk of Court issued a Cert: against Invar, see ECF No. 69. of the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs application for a default judgment “without prejudice te upon resolution of the case against” the non-defaulting Defendants. Chen vy. Kicho Corp., 18 Civ. 7413 (PMH Dec. 30, 2020). In the meantime, the Clerk’s Certificate of Default “preclude[es Invar], from [January 31, 2 from arguing the merits of the claims made against [it].” Diarama Trading Co., 2002 WL 31545845, at *4; s No. 69. of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 72. SO ORDERED. | WW Ga. do.