Caplan v. Dollinger
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-07996
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Caplan v. Dollinger, Judge Furman indicated he may undo defendants’ default, extend deadlines, and deny plaintiffs’ default-judgment motion.
The plaintiffs and defendants were affected by the court’s proposed handling of the default, response deadlines, default-judgment motion, possible motions to dismiss, and initial pretrial conference.
What happened
In Caplan v. Dollinger, the court addressed defendants’ request to vacate their Certificate of Default and plaintiffs’ request for default judgment. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Judge Furman said the court was inclined to vacate the Certificate of Default, retroactively extend defendants’ deadlines to respond to the amended complaint and oppose plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, and deny plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment.
The court did not enter those proposed rulings in this order. Instead, Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the parties to file a joint letter by February 3, 2025, addressing those matters, a possible schedule for motions to dismiss, and whether the February 5, 2025 initial pretrial conference was still needed. If held, that conference was changed to 9:30 a.m.
The detailed version
- Caplan v. Dollinger · No. 1:24-cv-07996
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 29, 2025
What the order addresses
The order concerns three pending matters: defendants’ motion to vacate the Certificate of Default; defendants’ request to extend, retroactively, their deadlines to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint and to oppose plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief; and plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment.
The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain the parties’ factual disputes.
Court’s stated inclination
Citing the established preference for deciding cases on their merits, the court stated that it was inclined to:
- Grant defendants’ motion to vacate the Certificate of Default;
- Extend, retroactively, defendants’ deadlines to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint and to oppose plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief; and
- Deny plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment.
The order states that the court was “inclined” to take these actions; it does not state that the motions were granted or denied in this order.
Required next steps
The parties were directed to confer and file a joint letter by February 3, 2025. The letter must address the court’s stated inclination, propose a briefing schedule if some or all defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss, and address whether the initial pretrial conference scheduled for February 5, 2025, remained necessary.
If the conference took place, the court changed its time to 9:30 a.m. The order also provided telephone-access instructions and reminded counsel to follow the court’s procedures for telephone conferences.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.