Heritage Integrity Investment Trust v. Computershare Trust Company, N.A.

What the court considered

The court reviewed Heritage Integrity Investment Trust's motion for default judgment against Ruwack Irrevocable Trust and its request to dismiss counterclaims asserted by Isaac Cain, a self-represented defendant. The motion and supporting affirmation were filed at Docket 46 and Docket 47.

Ruling

The court administratively denied the motions without prejudice to refiling no later than March 10, 2025. The court did not decide whether Heritage was entitled to a default judgment or whether Cain's counterclaims should be dismissed. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket 46.

Directions for refiling

Because the case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Moses for a report and recommendation on motions that could resolve claims, the court directed that pretrial motions and applications be made to Judge Moses and comply with her individual practices.

The court instructed that any request for default judgment against Ruwack must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 55.2. The filing must include required information or documents addressing, among other things, whether the clerk entered default, compliance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, whether the defendant is a minor or legally incompetent person, a memorandum of law, a proposed order, and proof that the materials were served. The court also required any returned mailing and the reason for its return to be reported in a supplemental certificate of service.

The court further explained that before entering a default judgment, it must have subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction and must determine that the complaint's factual allegations establish legal liability. The allegations must be sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court directed Heritage to address those issues in its memorandum.

Heritage was also directed to file the request for default judgment separately from its request to dismiss Cain's counterclaims. The latter request appeared to rely on the rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court instructed Heritage to comply with the local rules governing motions and to identify the rule on which the request was based. If Heritage relied on materials outside the pleadings, it also had to comply with the local rule governing such materials.

Finally, the court stated that parties in the Southern District of New York do not need to select a return date for a motion. The local rules set the briefing schedule, and the court would decide whether and when to hold oral argument.