Roderick D. Woods, P.C.

Roderick David Woods, Esq.* Attorney-and-Counselor at Law *Admitted to Practice in New York, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C.

August 11, 2025 Honorable Jesse M. Furman United States District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC v. Watson, et al; 1:25-cv-01746 (JMF) Dear Judge Furman: I represent the Plaintiff, Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC (“DTS”), with respect to the above matter. While explicitly reserving its rights to Amend its Complaint or file opposition papers to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the Court’s Order of July 28, 2025 (ECF No. 27), DTS respectfully submits this letter Motion respectfully requesting that the Court consider striking the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Unquestionably, the Clerk issued a Certificate of Default in this case on June 30, 2025. Nevertheless, prior to, or contemporaneous with, the filing of the Motion to Dismiss, Defendants failed to move (or otherwise act), under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), to set aside the existing default. There is good cause for the granting of this letter Motion and the relief it requests. First and foremost, the Defendants have procedurally-sidestepped the requirement to vacate a default and remain technically in default. Owing to the default status, and Defendants’ disregard of the Rules, DTS maintains that the Motion to Dismiss is untenable and should be stricken. To vacate an entry of default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) (as occurred here), a district court must consider three factors: (1) the willfulness of the default; (2) the existence of a meritorious defense to the defaulted claims; and (3) prejudice to the non-defaulting party should relief be granted. Pecarsky v. Galaxiworld.com, Ltd.,

, 171 (2d Cir. 2001). However, the Defendants have utterly failed to file any such Motion, and/or, for that matter have refused even to allude to any of the __________________________________________________________________________________________ 880 Third Avenue 5th Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 653-8754 (Telephone) (212) 656-1555 (Facsimile) [email protected] www.rdw-law.com Pecarsky elements in the current Motion, despite this issue having been raised in DTS’ letter Motion filed on July 28, 2025. For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the Motion to Dismiss filed at ECF No. 24 should be stricken. The Court’s time and kind attention to this request 1s appreciated. Very Truly Yours,

Roderick D. Woods, Esq. cc: Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC All Counsel of Record via ECF

Application DENIED, but without prejudice to raising these arguments in opposition to the motion to dismiss in the normal course. The Clerk of Court is directed to termninate ECF No. 28.

SO ORDERED. 7 12, 2025