The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions: (i) to correct the caption to name 58 VLIMP, LLC as a Defendant instead of VLMP, LLC; and (ii) for a default judgment against all Defendants, including 58 VLIMP, LLC. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motions are GRANTED.
This is a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurer, Plaintiff First Mercury Insurance Company ("FirstMercury"), against its insured, Defendant Schnabel Roofing of Long Island, Inc. ("Scnabel"), asserting that First Mercury does not have a duty to defend or indemnify Schnabel in a pending state court proceeding. Defendants "VLMP, Inc." and Steven Phillips are nominal Defendants and necessary parties, because they are the claimants in the underlying suit against Schnabel.
First Mercury's motion to amend seeks to correct the caption to name 58 VLIMP, LLC as a Defendant instead of VLMP, LLC. First Mercury originally named VLMP, LLC as a Defendant because that supposed entity is the listed claimant in the state case. However, First Mercury since learned that this entity was incorrectly named in the state case, and is actually named 58 VLIMP, LLC. In this regard, First Mercury has secured an Affidavit from 58 VLIMP, LLC's state court attorney, Irving Like, attesting to the entity's proper name. Based on this information, the Court GRANTS First Mercury's motion to amend the caption.
Additionally, the fact that First Mercury innocently, but incorrectly, named the wrong entity does not delay or slow the default judgment motion. Attorney Like has sworn that his client, a nominal Defendant only, "was properly served with the summons and complaint," and does not "dispute that [it] received proper notice and service of process in this action."*fn1
Consequently, the Court construes the default judgment motion as one brought against 58 VLIMP, LLC.
II. Default Judgment Motion
A default constitutes an admission of all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint, and the allegations as they pertain to liability are deemed true. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. ElNorteno Rest. Corp., 06-CV-1878, 2007 WL 2891016, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). A default judgment entered on the well-pled allegations in the complaint establishes a defendant's liability. See Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. v. Morales, 05-CV-0064, 2005 WL 2476264, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). The only question remaining, then, is whether Plaintiff has provided adequate support for the relief it seeks.
In determining whether to grant a default judgment, the Court is guided by the same factors which apply to a motion to set aside entry of a default. See Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90, 96 (2d Cir. 1993). These factors are:
(1) whether the default was willful; (2) whether ignoring the default would prejudice the adversary; and (3) whether a ...