Bernier v. Gard Recycling, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-00761
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bernier v. Gard Recycling, Inc., Judge Broderick granted plaintiffs’ request to indefinitely postpone their default-judgment deadline and set further case-management steps.
The plaintiffs and the corporate defendants Gard Recycling, Inc., DRC Group, Inc., and Beverage Recycling Corporation; the order also set case-management obligations for the parties.
What happened
In Bernier v. Gard Recycling, Inc., the plaintiffs asked for more time to seek a default judgment against Gard Recycling, Inc., DRC Group, Inc., and Beverage Recycling Corporation. They primarily requested waiting until the claims against Guastavo Rodriguez and Alex Doljansky were resolved, to avoid potentially inconsistent judgments. They alternatively requested an extension until January 10, 2025.
The plaintiffs said the corporate defendants had not followed an order requiring them to state whether they would retain lawyers, and that the court had warned this could result in default. They also cited a law firm trial as a reason for needing additional time. The court’s order states that fact discovery had concluded.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the application and adjourned the plaintiffs’ deadline to move for default judgment against the corporate defendants indefinitely. The court also required a joint case-status letter by January 3, 2025, and scheduled a telephone post-discovery conference for January 10, 2025.
The detailed version
- Bernier v. Gard Recycling, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00761
- Vernon Broderick
- Nov. 26, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs asked the court to extend the deadline for moving for a default judgment against Gard Recycling, Inc., DRC Group, Inc., and Beverage Recycling Corporation. A default judgment is a judgment that may be entered against a party that has failed to defend the case. The plaintiffs requested that the deadline be postponed until the claims against Guastavo Rodriguez and Alex Doljansky were resolved, or alternatively extended until January 10, 2025.
The application stated that the corporate defendants had not submitted a required letter advising whether they intended to retain counsel. The court had previously indicated that failure to retain counsel would result in the corporate defendants being held in default. The plaintiffs argued that postponing the default-judgment motion could avoid inconsistent judgments and duplicate damages proceedings. They also cited an attorney’s trial from December 9 through December 20, 2024, as an alternative reason for an extension.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It adjourned, or postponed, the plaintiffs’ deadline to move for a default judgment against Gard Recycling, Inc., DRC Group, Inc., and Beverage Recycling Corporation sine die, meaning indefinitely without setting a new deadline.
The order also stated that fact discovery had concluded under the Second Amended Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. It required the parties to submit a joint letter by January 3, 2025, updating the court on the case’s status, including possible dispositive motions, settlement efforts, remaining discovery disputes, and whether the parties wanted a referral to a magistrate judge for settlement. The court scheduled a telephone post-discovery conference for January 10, 2025, at 2:00 p.m.
Effect of the Order
The order postponed the deadline for seeking default judgment against the three corporate defendants but did not decide the claims’ merits or enter a default judgment. It also established additional case-management deadlines and a post-discovery conference.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.