Roche v. The Lillian Goldman Family, L.L.C.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-05243
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Roche v. The Lillian Goldman Family, Judge Broderick vacated Juice Generation’s default but denied its extension request as moot.
Juice Generation Inc.’s default was vacated, allowing it to respond to Colleen Roche’s complaint; the ruling did not decide the underlying disability-accommodation claims.
What happened
In Roche v. The Lillian Goldman Family, Juice Generation failed to respond to Colleen Roche’s complaint by the deadline, and the clerk entered a certificate of default. Roche’s complaint alleges that the defendants violated disability-accommodation laws.
Juice Generation asked the court to set aside the default and extend its response deadline. The court found that Juice Generation did not act deliberately, that reopening the case would not unfairly harm Roche, and that Roche’s counsel had agreed to vacating the default. Although Juice Generation did not provide enough evidence of a valid defense, the court favored resolving the dispute rather than ending it by default.
Judge Broderick granted Juice Generation’s motion to vacate the default. The court denied as moot Juice Generation’s separate request for more time to respond because the court had already granted that extension through January 3, 2025.
The detailed version
- Roche v. The Lillian Goldman Family, L.L.C. · No. 1:24-cv-05243
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 11, 2024
Background
Colleen Roche sued defendants, including Juice Generation Inc., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law based on an alleged failure to provide required accommodations to Roche, who uses a wheelchair. Juice Generation was served on August 13, 2024, and its response was due September 3, 2024. It did not respond by that deadline.
On November 12, 2024, the clerk entered a certificate of default against Juice Generation after Roche requested one. Juice Generation later appeared through counsel and asked to vacate the default and extend its time to respond to the complaint.
Legal standard
Because the clerk had entered a certificate of default but no default judgment had been entered, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c)’s “good cause” standard. The court considered whether the default was willful, whether setting it aside would prejudice Roche, whether Juice Generation had presented a meritorious defense, and whether leaving the default in place would produce a harsh or unfair result. The court also considered the Second Circuit’s preference for resolving disputes on their merits rather than by default.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Juice Generation’s default was not willful. Although Juice Generation did not explain why it took more than three months after service to appear, it acted promptly after learning of the default, obtained counsel, and notified the court that Roche’s counsel had consented to vacating it.
The court also found that vacating the default would not unfairly prejudice Roche. No defendant had filed an answer, so reopening the case would not require duplicative work, and Roche’s counsel had consented to vacating the default.
Juice Generation did not establish a meritorious defense. It merely asserted that it had complied in good faith with the applicable laws and provided no supporting evidence. The court nevertheless concluded, after balancing the factors and considering the preference for decisions on the merits, that Juice Generation had shown good cause to set aside the default.
Disposition
The court granted Juice Generation’s motion to vacate the default. The court denied as moot Juice Generation’s request for an extension of time to respond because the court had already granted an extension through January 3, 2025.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.