On motion sequence 002 in this action, plaintiff pro se, James Fahey, moves under CPLR 3215 for default judgment against defendant Sabre GLBL Inc., seeking damages of $1,000,000. (See NYSCEF No. 61 [notice of motion].) On motion sequence 004, defendants Sabre Corporation (Sabre Corp.) and Sabre GLBL (collectively, the Sabre defendants) move by order to show cause under CPLR 6301 for a preliminary injunction restraining plaintiff from communicating with or contacting Sabre Corp., Sabre GLBL, or any affiliated Sabre entity, and any employee of Sabre Corp., Sabre GLBL, or any affiliated Sabre entity, except through their outside counsel. (See NYSCEF No. 106 [proposed order to show cause].) Plaintiff's default-motion is denied. The Sabre defendants' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted.

1. A party moving for default judgment under CPLR 3215 must establish that the defendant defaulted after being properly served, and must provide proof of the facts constituting movant's claims. Plaintiff has not established that he properly served Sabre GLBL (or, indeed, served Sabre GLBL at all).

As the Sabre defendants point out, plaintiff's affidavit of service of the initiating papers in this action reflects service only on Sabre Corp., not Sabre GLBL. (See NYSCEF No. 56 at 1 [stating that plaintiff's process server served the summons with notice "upon Sabre Corporation"].^[FN1] ) Plaintiff's filings in this action consistently treat Sabre Corp. and Sabre GLBL as interchangeable names for the same entity. (See e.g. NYSCEF No. 63 at 1-2 [mem. of law].) But counsel for the Sabre defendants have appeared on behalf of two entities, not one (see NYSCEF No. 70 at 1 [notice of appearance]); and counsel has represented that Sabre Corp. and Sabre GLBL are separate entities (see NYSCEF No. 71 at 1 [mem. of law].) Plaintiff provides no contrary evidence that the two should be treated as one company, such as proof that Sabre Corp. is merely a trade name for Sabre GLBL, or vice versa. To the contrary, plaintiff filed on the docket a copy of Sabre Corp.'s 2024 federal Form 10-K, which states on page one that Sabre GLBL is an indirect corporate subsidiary of Sabre Corp. (See NYSCEF No. 93 at 3 [pdf pagination].)

Absent a showing that Sabre Corp. and Sabre GLBL are two names for the same corporation, valid service on one will not constitute valid service on the other for CPLR 3215 purposes. Moreover, plaintiff has not established valid service on Sabre Corp., either. Plaintiff attempted to serve Sabre Corp. under CPLR 311 (a) (1) by delivery to its registered agent. But the New York Department of State's corporate-entity records, of which this court may take judicial notice (see LaSonde v Seabrook, 89 AD3d 132, 137 n 8 [1st Dept 2011]), reflect that Sabre Corp. is not registered in New York State in the first place. No registration in New York; no New York registered agent for service purposes.^[FN2] For that reason, the company to which plaintiff delivered process for Sabre Corp. later notified him by letter that his service was rejected because "[a]ccording to our records and/or the records of the Secretary of State, we are not the registered agent for the [*2]party you are attempting to serve."^[FN3] (NYSCEF No. 109.)

2. The Sabre defendants request on motion sequence 004 that plaintiff be enjoined from communicating or contacting any Sabre entity (or Sabre employee) except through the Sabre defendants' counsel who have appeared in this action. In support of the motion, the Sabre defendants provide evidence that plaintiff has repeatedly contacted Sabre Corp. and Sabre GLBL (and their employees) directly, after having been expressly notified (by Sabre's in-house counsel and its outside counsel in this action), that all communications should go exclusively through outside counsel. (See NYSCEF No. 107 at ¶¶ 15-20 [affirmation of counsel]; NYSCEF Nos. 111-114 [messages].) In one such communication, plaintiff emailed Sabre GLBL's security department on April 19, 2025, to "advise that as of 8:00 a.m. Central Time on Tuesday, service of process upon your CEO, Mr. Kurt Ekert, will proceed without further delay," and to ask them to "advise his security team as such." (NYSCEF No. 112.) The email further stated that "[g]iven Sabre Legal's refusal to engage or coordinate in good faith, Plaintiff will serve directly"; and that if the security department has "any interest in deconflicting this process, you may respond prior to that time." (Id.) Ekert is not a party to this action; and service by a party is invalid. (See CPLR 2103 [a].)

Plaintiff's opposition to this motion states that his various contacts with the Sabre defendants and their employees were "courteous[] and directly related to protecting [plaintiff's] procedural rights in the face of Defendants' evasive and uncooperative defense" (NYSCEF No. 117 at 2); and that these contacts are "consistent with [plaintiff's] ongoing pattern of professional and transparent conduct throughout these proceedings" (NYSCEF No. 120 at 2).^[FN4] This court does not see it that way. Plaintiff lacks a valid reason for directly contacting the Sabre defendants and their employees (whether by electronic means, through telephone calls, or in person), rather than communicating through litigation counsel whose identities are known to him. Plaintiff may not continue to engage in this behavior. The Sabre defendants' motion for injunctive relief is granted.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff's default-judgment motion (mot seq 002) is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the Sabre defendants' preliminary-injunction motion (mot seq 004) is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff and anyone acting on his behalf are enjoined and restrained from

(i) communicating with or taking any action to contact (whether by electronic or telephonic means or in person) Sabre Corporation, Sabre GLBL Inc., or any other related Sabre entity, about any matter related to the subject of this action, except through counsel at Baker & Hostetler LLP; and

(ii) communicating with or taking any action to contact (whether by electronic or telephonic [*3]means or in person) any individual currently employed by Sabre Corporation, Sabre GLBL Inc., or any other related Sabre entity, about any matter related to the subject of this action, other than through counsel at Baker & Hostetler LLP;

ORDERED that the Sabre defendants serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry on plaintiff by email and e-filing on NYSCEF.