Frankiewicz v. Manhattan Cryobank, Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:20-cv-05157
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Frankiewicz v. Manhattan Cryobank, Judge Rochon denied default judgment and ordered Plaintiffs to explain why the certified class should not be decertified.
The ruling directly affected Plaintiffs Andrea Frankiewicz and Ruth Perez and the certified class by denying the motion for default judgment and requiring briefing on possible class decertification. It also affected Manhattan Cryobank, Inc. and CNTP MCB, Inc., against whom the Plaintiffs had sought default judgment.
What happened
In Frankiewicz v. Manhattan Cryobank, Inc., Andrea Frankiewicz and Ruth Perez sued Manhattan Cryobank, Inc. and CNTP MCB, Inc. for contract-related claims and sought to represent a class. The Defendants did not appear, and the Clerk entered defaults against them.
The Plaintiffs moved for default judgment after class certification and discovery efforts. A magistrate judge recommended denying that motion and requiring the Plaintiffs to explain why the class should not be decertified because new evidence raised concerns about whether the named Plaintiffs fit the certified class and had typical claims.
No party objected to the recommendation. Judge Rochon reviewed it for clear error, adopted it in full, denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, and ordered them to file a brief addressing possible class decertification by April 22, 2025.
The detailed version
- Frankiewicz v. Manhattan Cryobank, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-05157
- Rochon
- Apr. 8, 2025
Background
Andrea Frankiewicz and Ruth Perez brought the action individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals. They asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Defendants did not file an answer or otherwise appear. After the answer deadline passed, the Clerk entered certificates of default against both Defendants.
The Plaintiffs moved for class certification and requested permission to conduct discovery before seeking default judgment. The Court previously adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation granting class certification and allowing additional discovery.
Report and Recommendation
The Plaintiffs later moved for default judgment. The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be denied without prejudice and that the Plaintiffs be required to submit a brief explaining why the Court should not decertify the class on its own initiative. The recommendation relied on new evidence in the materials supporting default judgment, which indicated that the named Plaintiffs might not have properly alleged that their claims were typical and might not fall within the certified class definition.
The recommendation gave the parties fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object would waive further review and prevent appellate review. No party filed an objection by the deadline.
Ruling
Because there were no timely objections, the Court reviewed the recommendation for clear error—an obvious mistake on the face of the record. Judge Rochon found the recommendation sound and not clearly erroneous, and stated that the Court was also troubled by the documents submitted in support of default judgment.
The Court adopted the recommendation in its entirety. Consistent with the recommendation, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. The Court also directed the Plaintiffs to file a brief of no more than fifteen pages by April 22, 2025, addressing why the Court should not decertify the class on its own initiative. The Court did not decide in this opinion whether to decertify the class. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.