M.R. v. New York City Department of Education

Background

M.R., individually and on behalf of G.V., a child with a disability, sued the N.Y.C. Department of Education. After obtaining a Clerk’s Certificate of Default, which records a defendant’s failure to respond, M.R. moved for default judgment on June 7, 2024.

The Department’s counsel appeared on June 14, 2024, and filed opposition to the motion on June 24, 2024. The Department submitted a declaration from Jeffrey Dantowitz, deputy chief of general litigation in the Office of the Corporation Counsel. The declaration stated that the failure to respond resulted from Dantowitz’s careless failure to assign the case to an attorney.

Court’s reasoning

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), a court may set aside an entry of default for good cause. The court considered three factors: whether the failure was intentional, whether setting aside the default would unfairly harm the opposing party, and whether the defendant presented a potentially valid defense.

The court found that the Department’s failure was not intentional. It also found that M.R. would not suffer undue prejudice because the case had been filed recently, in March 2024, and the Department had been in default only since late May 2024. Finally, the Department might have a valid defense concerning M.R.’s counsel’s requested rates and hours, which the Department argued were potentially too high or excessive.

Disposition

The court denied M.R.’s motion for default judgment. It directed the Clerk of Court to vacate the Certificate of Default entered at Docket 13. The court granted the Department’s requested 90-day extension, until September 23, 2024, to answer or otherwise move in response to the complaint.

The court further directed the parties to jointly propose a schedule for briefing an anticipated motion for attorney’s fees and costs if they could not settle by September 23, 2024. The order was signed by Paul A. Engelmayer, United States District Judge.