Belsham v. The Healing Company Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-02659
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Belsham v. The Healing Company Inc., Judge Liman vacated the default certificate, denied default judgment as moot, and ordered the case forward.
The ruling affects Simon Belsham and The Healing Company Inc. The company may continue defending the case, and the case will proceed under the court’s expedited schedule.
What happened
In Belsham v. The Healing Company Inc., Simon Belsham asked the clerk to record that the company had failed to respond, and then asked the court to enter judgment because of that failure.
The company later appeared, opposed the request for judgment, and asked the court to cancel the certificate of default. The opinion says the company’s failure to appear did not appear intentional, Belsham had not shown prejudice, and the company had presented a potentially valid defense.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion to vacate the certificate of default and denied Belsham’s motion for default judgment as no longer necessary. The court ordered the company to answer and set deadlines for case-management filings and an initial conference.
The detailed version
- Belsham v. The Healing Company Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02659
- Lewis Liman
- June 7, 2024
Background
On May 9, 2024, Plaintiff Simon Belsham asked the Clerk of Court to issue a certificate of default against Defendant The Healing Company Inc. The clerk entered the certificate the next day. Belsham filed a motion for default judgment on May 15, 2024.
On June 6, 2024, The Healing Company appeared, opposed the motion for default judgment, and moved to vacate the certificate of default. Vacating the certificate removes the clerk’s formal record that the defendant was in default.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the company’s failure to appear did not appear willful, as opposed to merely negligent. The court also found that Belsham had not shown prejudice because the company agreed to an expedited schedule for discovery and briefing, which the court required. Finally, the court found that the company had raised a defense that was, at least on its face, potentially meritorious.
Ruling and Next Steps
As stated at the June 7 hearing, the court granted the motion to vacate the certificate of default. Because the certificate was vacated, the court denied the motion for default judgment as moot, meaning the court treated that motion as no longer requiring a decision. The clerk was directed to close Docket No. 11.
The court ordered The Healing Company to answer by June 11, 2024. The parties were ordered to file a proposed case-management plan by June 14, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. The court also scheduled a telephonic initial pretrial conference for June 17, 2024, at 2:00 p.m.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.