Gibson v. KRJS Corp.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Jeffrey Gibson brought this action against Defendant K J R S Corporation d/b/a Kavi Gupta Gallery on May 8, 2023. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff sought entry of default, Dkt. No. 5, which the Clerk granted, Dkt. No. 6 (“Entry of Default”). On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment, which is now before the Court. Dkt. No. 9-11 (“Motion for Default Judgment” or “Motion”). On August 21, 2023, and with leave of the Court, see Dkt. No. 19, Defendant filed a combined motion responding to Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and cross-moving to set aside the Entry of Default. Dkt. No. 20-5 (“Response and Cross-Motion” or “Cross-Motion”). On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant’s Response and Cross-Motion. Dkt. No. 21 (“Reply”). For the reasons that follow, the Court holds that Defendant’s Cross-Motion is granted, the Entry of Default is vacated, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is denied. II. BACKGROUND The following facts are set forth as alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff is an interdisciplinary visual artist based in Hudson, New York. See Compl.

3, 8. His practice “combines the cultural and artistic traditions of his Cherokee and Choctaw heritage with the visual languages of Modernism and themes from contemporary popular and queer culture.” Id. 8. Plaintiff’s work has been featured “in the permanent collections of the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Denver Art Museum, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of the American Indian, the National Gallery of Canada, among many others.” Id. Defendant is an art gallery incorporated under the laws of Illinois, see id. 4, and operated by the art dealer Kavi Gupta, see id. 10. “In or around late 2017,” Defendant contacted Plaintiff to express interest in displaying Plaintiff’s work at an art fair in Miami Beach, Florida. Id. 13. From that point forward, Defendant and Plaintiff remained in contact and, “[f]rom time to time thereafter,” Plaintiff “consigned artworks to the Gallery for exhibition and sale.” Id.