352 Capital GP LLC v. Wear
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-05102
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In 352 Capital GP LLC v. Wear, Judge Caproni denied as moot Wear’s request to set aside default because no defendant was currently in default.
Ryan Wear’s request for relief was denied as moot. The order also affected the defendants’ response deadline and reminded Wear that he could represent himself but could not represent business entities without a lawyer.
What happened
In 352 Capital GP LLC v. Wear, Ryan Wear asked the court to set aside a default. He said he had believed a bankruptcy-related stay applied to all parties, had filed a response to the complaint, and did not know that he also needed to file a notice of appearance.
Wear argued that his delay had a good explanation, that he had already responded to the complaint, and that no party would be harmed. The court’s order also addressed the case’s amended complaint and upcoming deadlines.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied the application as moot because no defendant was currently in default. She said defendants could move to dismiss or answer the amended complaint by December 11, 2024, and reminded Wear that he could represent himself but could not represent any business entity without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- 352 Capital GP LLC v. Wear · No. 1:24-cv-05102
- Valerie Caproni
- Nov. 19, 2024
Background
Ryan Wear, proceeding without a lawyer, asked the court to set aside default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c). The motion stated that plaintiffs had also filed a case in Washington State court and that Wear believed bankruptcy filings stayed actions against all parties. He said he filed a response to the complaint on October 23, 2024, but did not know that a separate notice of appearance was required.
Wear further stated that he misunderstood an October 29 order concerning pending motions to dismiss and believed all defendants had until November 18, 2024, to respond to the amended complaint. He said he filed a notice of appearance after reviewing a joint status letter and later received a mailed request for a notice of appearance after the stated deadline had passed. He argued that there was good cause for the delay, that he had previously answered the complaint, and that no other party would be prejudiced.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni denied the application as moot. The court stated that none of the defendants was currently in default. The court explained that plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 29, 2024, and that the deadline for all defendants to move to dismiss the amended complaint was extended to December 11, 2024. A defendant choosing to answer instead of moving to dismiss also had to do so by that date. The deadline for plaintiffs to seek an order requiring non-answering or non-appearing defendants to explain why default judgment should not be entered was adjourned to December 18, 2024.
The court reminded Wear that he could represent himself only, and that a corporation or other business entity could appear in federal court only through a lawyer. The court also encouraged him to review district resources for people without lawyers and to consider registering to receive court documents electronically.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.