City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC
645 F.3d 114
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- City of New York sued fifteen out-of-state firearms dealers in 2006 for public and statutory nuisance, negligence, and related claims.
- Mickalis Pawn Shop and Adventure Outdoors moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; district court denied.
- Defendants later withdrew counsel and announced they would not continue participation; court entered default against them.
- District court eventually awarded default judgments and permanent injunctions against both defendants.
- PLCAA issue raised; court held it does not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction; defenses were forfeited by withdrawal.
- Injunctions were found to violate Rule 65(d) and were vacated with remand for narrower relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withdrawal after denial of jurisdictional motions supports a void default | City | Mickalis/Adventure | No; default valid; defenses forfeited. |
| Whether PLCAA divests subject-matter jurisdiction or merely provides a defense | City | PLCAA forecloses claims | PLCAA does not divest jurisdiction; defenses forfeited. |
| Whether the injunctions comply with Rule 65(d) and are not overbroad | City | Injunctions valid | Injunctions vacated; remanded for narrowly tailored relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 1993) (default judgment review and Rule 55 procedures; damages and specifics handled separately)
- Brock v. Unique Racquetball & Health Clubs, Inc., 786 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1986) (broad ‘otherwise defend’ interpretation supports default for non-appearance)
- Au Bon Pain Corp. v. Artect, Inc., 653 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1981) (defendant's litigation tactics can justify default under Rule 55(a))
- Spamhaus Project v. Cyberspace Publication, 500 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2007) (waiver/forfeiture of jurisdictional defenses when party abandons defense)
- Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA), Inc. v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 1999) (limits on sua sponte jurisdictional considerations; related to preserving defenses)