Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. Birnbaum

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that district court did not err in finding that defendant willfully defaulted where he received the complaint and the court’s orders and never answered
• holding that the district court only needs to warn of “sanc- tions” but not necessarily default judgment
• holding that “the district court was well within its discretion to deny the stay,” where, inter alia, “[a]lthough a criminal complaint had been filed in the case, [the defendant] was never indicted”
• finding that the district court properly found a party had willfully disobeyed when the party had “numerous extensions” and “had not complied with written and oral discovery-related court orders”
• noting that a court may raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte
• noting that where defendant “does not deny that he received the complaint, the court’s orders, or the notice of default judgment” and “does not contend that his non-compliance was due to circumstances beyond his control,” an inference of willful default is justified

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).