Breuninger v. T. Edward Williams
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-07033
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Breuninger v. T. Edward Williams, Judge Cronan directed the Clerk not to issue a default certificate and extended a compliance deadline.
T. Edward Williams and Jane Doe Williams, as counterclaimants, were given an extended deadline and warned about possible dismissal and sanctions. Richard Breuninger and ITGA LLC were affected because the Clerk was directed not to issue a certificate of default against them. T. Edward Williams was also warned about possible sanctions for continued unprofessional conduct.
What happened
In Breuninger v. T. Edward Williams, the court said that T. Edward Williams and Jane Doe Williams had not followed an earlier order concerning how Jane Doe Williams should be identified in the case. Their claims against Richard Breuninger and ITGA LLC included unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims that had not been dismissed at that point.
Williams instead sought certificates of default against Breuninger and ITGA, but the Clerk’s Office rejected the requests because of filing problems. The court directed the Clerk not to issue a certificate of default while the counterclaims might need to be amended.
Judge John P. Cronan extended the deadline to July 18, 2024, for the counterclaimants to name Jane Doe Williams, dismiss her as a counterclaimant, or ask to proceed under a pseudonym. The court warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal with prejudice and that continued disrespectful conduct by Williams could result in sanctions.
The detailed version
- Breuninger v. T. Edward Williams · No. 1:20-cv-07033
- John Cronan
- July 11, 2024
Background
The court stated that, in a June 20, 2024 Opinion and Order, it dismissed all of the supplemental counterclaims brought by T. Edward Williams and Jane Doe Williams except the fourth counterclaim, which asserted unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims against Richard Breuninger and ITGA LLC.
The earlier order directed the parties, within fourteen days, to take one of three actions concerning the John and Jane Doe parties: amend the operative pleadings to name them, dismiss them from the action, or ask to litigate with them under pseudonyms. The court noted that T. Edward Williams was counsel for the counterclaimants and that Jane Doe Williams was supposedly his wife. The deadline passed without the counterclaimants taking any of those actions.
Default Requests
Instead of complying with the earlier directive, Williams sought certificates of default against Breuninger and ITGA. The Clerk’s Office rejected the first proposed certificate because of multiple filing deficiencies. Williams then submitted another request for a certificate of default.
Court’s Order
The court directed the Clerk not to issue a certificate of default against Breuninger or ITGA because the supplemental counterclaims might need to be amended to comply with the earlier directive.
The court extended the deadline to July 18, 2024, for the counterclaimants to comply concerning Jane Doe Williams by doing one of three things: amending the supplemental counterclaims for the limited purpose of naming her, dismissing her as a counterclaimant, or moving to litigate with her under a pseudonym. The court stated that failure to comply could result in dismissal with prejudice of the supplemental counterclaims.
The court also addressed Williams’s reported disrespectful conduct toward two Clerk’s Office employees during a telephone call about the rejected default request. Judge John P. Cronan reminded Williams of his duty, as an officer of the court, to behave professionally and warned that continued unprofessional behavior could result in sanctions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.