Gromina v. Forexonia, LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-00744
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gromina v. Kazmarck, Judge Oetken set aside the default and denied Gromina’s motion for default judgment.
Elina Gromina’s request for default judgment was denied, and Alex Kazmarck’s default was set aside. Kazmarck was allowed to continue defending the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law claims and was ordered to file an answer within seven days after receiving the order.
What happened
In Gromina v. Kazmarck, Alex Kazmarck did not timely answer Elina Gromina’s claims after the court denied his motion to dismiss. The clerk entered a default after Kazmarck’s answer was ten days late, and Gromina then sought default judgment.
Kazmarck explained that a mailing delay and a family emergency caused the delay. He also said employment documents could support defenses to Gromina’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The court found no apparent intentional default, no undue prejudice to Gromina, and a possible valid defense.
Judge Oetken granted Kazmarck’s motion to set aside the certificate of default and denied Gromina’s motion for default judgment. The court ordered Kazmarck to file his answer within seven days after receiving the order.
The detailed version
- Gromina v. Forexonia, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00744
- James Oetken
- Jan. 21, 2025
Background
The court considered two motions: Elina Gromina’s motion for default judgment and Alex Kazmarck’s motion to set aside the clerk’s certificate of default. On October 21, 2024, the court denied Kazmarck’s motion to dismiss. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), Kazmarck then had fourteen days to answer, but he did not file an answer on time. The clerk entered a certificate of default on November 12, 2024.
On November 15, Kazmarck requested more time to answer, citing a mailing delay and an unforeseen family emergency involving the unexpected death of a close family member. The court treated that request as a motion to set aside the certificate of default. Kazmarck represented himself and had not agreed to electronic service. Gromina opposed his motion and filed her motion for default judgment.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), a court may set aside an entry of default for good cause. Courts consider whether the default was intentional, whether setting it aside would unfairly harm the opposing party, and whether the defaulting party has presented a potentially valid defense. The court also noted the strong preference for resolving disputes on their merits rather than through defaults.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Kazmarck’s delay did not appear intentional. He was only ten days late and attributed the delay to the mailing problem and family emergency. The court also found that setting aside the default would not unfairly harm Gromina because Kazmarck committed to filing an immediate answer and cooperating to move the case forward. Finally, Kazmarck stated that employment documents produced during discovery would provide several legitimate defenses to Gromina’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The court concluded that, if Kazmarck had the documentation he described, he might have a valid defense.
Disposition
The court exercised its discretion to set aside the certificate of default against Kazmarck and denied Gromina’s motion for default judgment. It granted Kazmarck’s motion to set aside the certificate of default. Kazmarck was ordered to file his answer within seven days after receiving the order. The clerk was directed to close Gromina’s default-judgment motion and mail a copy of the order to Kazmarck.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.