Felberbaum v. Felberbaum

Background

Perl Felberbaum filed this action and later amended the petition. After service of the summons, the response deadline passed without a response from Yaakov Felberbaum. Perl Felberbaum obtained a Clerk’s Certificate of Default on October 9, 2024, and the Court later issued an order requiring the parties to show why a default judgment should not be entered. Perl Felberbaum did not timely serve that order as required, despite extensions. The Court later issued a revised order, which Perl Felberbaum served along with related papers.

Respondent’s Response

On the return date for the revised order, Yaakov Felberbaum appeared through counsel and opposed entry of a default judgment. He disputed whether he had been properly served with the summons and revised order. Although he argued that improper service deprived the Court of personal jurisdiction over him, he asked the Court to set aside the Clerk’s entry of default and allow him to file an expedited answer. The opinion states that the proceeding involves the potential relocation of the parties’ minor children.

Rule 55(c) Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) allows a court to set aside an entry of default for “good cause.” Courts generally disfavor defaults and consider whether the default was willful, whether setting it aside would prejudice the other side, and whether the defaulting party has a potentially meritorious defense. The Court may also consider whether allowing the default to stand would produce a harsh or unfair result.

Court’s Analysis

The Court found good cause to vacate the Clerk’s entry of default. Yaakov Felberbaum presented evidence that he was not properly served with the summons or revised order. The Court found that he gave a reasonable explanation for his delayed response and could not be found to have acted willfully under the circumstances.

The Court also found that Yaakov Felberbaum had identified potentially meritorious defenses. Specifically, he argued that Perl Felberbaum had not pleaded enough facts to establish that the children’s habitual residence was Israel when the alleged wrongful retention occurred, and that at least one Convention exception could prevent repatriation. The Court concluded that any prejudice from delay did not outweigh the other factors. It also noted that Perl Felberbaum had contributed to the delay by repeatedly failing to follow court orders and deadlines.

Ruling and Next Steps

The Court denied Perl Felberbaum’s motion for a default judgment without prejudice. It granted Yaakov Felberbaum’s request to vacate the Clerk’s entry of default and ordered him to answer or otherwise respond by April 18, 2025. The Clerk was directed to vacate the Certificate of Default. The Court scheduled an initial telephone conference for April 29, 2025, directed the parties to begin necessary discovery, and instructed them to prepare to discuss an evidentiary hearing and possible alternative dispute resolution. The Court did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.