BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Platinum Rapid Funding Group, Ltd.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-07163
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In BMO Harris Bank v. Platinum Rapid Funding, Judge Cronan denied BMO’s default-judgment motion, allowing renewal later and postponing the hearing without a new date.
BMO Harris Bank N.A. must proceed without the requested default judgment for now, while Platinum Rapid Funding Group, Ltd. remains subject to the earlier discovery requirements and must respond about withdrawing its summary-judgment request.
What happened
In BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Platinum Rapid Funding Group, Ltd., BMO told the court that default judgment was no longer appropriate after the defendant appeared through new counsel. BMO also raised concerns about the defendant’s failure to comply with earlier discovery requirements.
BMO asked the court to delay both its default-judgment motion and the defendant’s request to seek summary judgment until the defendant completed discovery and BMO could question Ali Mayar. The earlier discovery order required supplemental answers, production of electronic records or a sworn explanation that none were available, and further consideration of a deposition.
Judge John Cronan denied BMO’s default-judgment motion without prejudice to renewal if appropriate later and adjourned the June 26, 2024 hearing without setting a new date. The court also directed the defendant to state whether it consented to withdrawing its request for permission to file a summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Platinum Rapid Funding Group, Ltd. · No. 1:22-cv-07163
- John Cronan
- June 10, 2024
Current order
BMO Harris Bank N.A. moved for default judgment against Platinum Rapid Funding Group, Ltd. BMO later conceded that default judgment was no longer appropriate because the defendant had appeared through new counsel. BMO attributed the change in circumstances to the defendant’s belated appearance and the preference for deciding cases on their merits.
The court denied the default-judgment motion without prejudice to renewal if appropriate at a future point. It also adjourned the June 26, 2024 hearing without setting a new date. The court directed the defendant to file a letter by June 13, 2024, stating whether it consented to withdrawing its request for permission to file a summary-judgment motion. The text also states that the Clerk of Court was directed to close docket numbers beginning with 82, but the relevant portion is cut off.
Discovery background
BMO argued that the defendant should not proceed as though an earlier discovery order had not been entered. In that December 27, 2023 order, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn granted BMO’s discovery motion in part. The order required the defendant to supplement responses to specified interrogatories, have counsel certify their completeness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g), and produce relevant electronically stored information, including emails and financial records, or provide a sworn statement from Ali Mayar describing a reasonable search and stating that no documents were available.
The earlier order also required the parties to discuss whether an additional deposition was needed. If they could not resolve that issue, BMO was required to submit the prior deposition transcript, the Rule 30(b)(6) notice, and a short letter identifying questions the witness could not answer. The current text does not state a final ruling on whether an additional deposition or sanctions would occur.
Effect of the ruling
The ruling addressed the default-judgment request and related case-management matters; it did not decide the underlying dispute between the parties. Judge John Cronan’s order therefore left open the possibility that BMO could renew its default-judgment motion if appropriate later.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.