Order | Filed: September 11, 2026
| Entered: September 11, 2026
Brown v. Valdez et al
Motor Vehicle | New York Eastern
Order on Motion for Default Judgment
ORDER denying 47 Request for Certificate of Default. Plaintiff's original complaint filed in state court did not name any Amazon-associated defendants. See ECF No. 1-1. On 5/7/2026, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint "to add the additional defendant, Amazon, as appropriate." The discussion during the May 11, 2026 conference did not discuss adding multiple Amazon entities. Nonetheless, on 5/21/2026, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming three Amazon entities: Amazon.com Inc.; Amazon.com Services, LLC; and Amazon Logistics, Inc. See ECF No. 23 . At ECF No. 43 , counsel appeared for Amazon Logistics, Inc. At ECF No. 42 , Amazon Logistics, Inc. filed an answer. The answer noted the response of "Amazon Logistics, Inc. incorrectly sued herein as Amazon.com Inc., Amazon.Com Services LLC, and Amazon Logistics, Inc." See ECF No. 42 at 1. Paragraphs 8-9 of the answer note that Amazon.Com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC were erroneously sued in this matter. Id. at 2. Thus, Plaintiff's counsel has been on notice that Plaintiff may well have incorrectly sued two Amazon Defendants. The participation of an Amazon entity in this case was the subject of discussion during the August 11, 2026 conference. Counsel for Amazon Logistics, Inc. stated "Amazon Logistics, Inc. would be the only correct entity... [t]he other Amazon entities do not deal with the transportation practice." See ECF No. 48 at 3-4. Despite this notice, and despite the fact that counsel has appeared and answered on behalf of an Amazon entity, Plaintiff's counsel filed a request for a certificate of default against two non-appearing Amazon entities. Moreover, Plaintiff's counsel filed these requests for default despite the fact that fact discovery is continuing, and Plaintiff has the opportunity during the discovery period to confirm the identity of the correct Amazon entity that was allegedly involved in the subject accident. This background raises the question as to whether Plaintiff has a good-faith basis for not discontinuing the action against the other two Amazon Defendants, let alone for requesting a default certificate as to these two entities.
It would be inefficient for the Court to enter certificates of default against entities as to which there is a significant fact question as to whether they belong in this action, particularly since an Amazon entity is participating in the case, along with two non-Amazon-associated Defendants. Counsel are expected to discuss and resolve this issue as expeditiously as possible. If these two Amazon entities do not belong in this action, Plaintiff should dismiss them.
Ordered by Chief Mag. Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 9/11/2026. (JAA)