Johnson v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC

Background

Joseph Johnson, appearing without a lawyer, filed a second request for reconsideration. He asked the court to review documents he said had been submitted, including an affidavit concerning service. Johnson argued that Starwood had used a fraudulent or illegal service address and that its time to respond had expired. He also objected to an order by United States Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granting Starwood an extension of time to respond to the complaint. Johnson asked the court to reverse the result in Starwood’s favor and referred to employment-related claims and alleged legal violations.

The Court’s Review

The court did not find any docket entry showing that an affidavit had been filed on March 18, 2024, and did not find the referenced affidavit elsewhere on the docket. The court stated that Johnson could refile the materials if he chose to do so.

The court treated Johnson’s motion as an objection to Judge Figueredo’s order granting Starwood additional time to respond. Starwood had submitted a letter stating that Johnson’s service was rejected because CT Corporation was not Starwood’s registered agent. The court found that Johnson had submitted no evidence showing that Starwood’s explanation was untrue.

Ruling

Judge Subramanian found no error in Judge Figueredo’s order and overruled Johnson’s objections. The court cited the general rule that default judgments are disfavored and the preference for deciding cases on their merits. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 55. The opinion does not decide the merits of Johnson’s underlying employment-related claims.

Classification Basis

This is a procedural order because the court ruled on reconsideration and objections concerning an extension of time and potential default, rather than deciding the underlying claims.