Finkelstein v. Fox
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-04056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Finkelstein v. Fox, Judge Furman proposed extending three defendants’ answer deadline and canceling a default-judgment hearing, subject to Plaintiff’s objection.
David Finkelstein; defendants Benjamin Carson, Jr., James Murphy, and Phillip P. Scala; and the scheduled August 27, 2025 default-judgment hearing.
What happened
In Finkelstein v. Fox, David Finkelstein asked the court to enter judgment because certain defendants had not answered by the deadline. On August 20, 2025, Benjamin Carson, Jr., James Murphy, and Phillip P. Scala appeared and opposed that request.
The court said it was inclined to give those three defendants until September 15, 2025, to answer, treating the extension as effective from the earlier deadline. It also indicated that it would cancel the default-judgment hearing scheduled for August 27, 2025.
The court did not yet make those changes. Judge Furman ordered Finkelstein to file a letter by noon on August 25, 2025, stating whether he objected. The order cites the strong preference for deciding cases on their merits.
The detailed version
- Finkelstein v. Fox · No. 1:24-cv-04056
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 21, 2025
Background
David Finkelstein sued Andrew Fox and others individually and on behalf of people similarly situated. Finkelstein had filed a motion for default judgment, which asks the court to enter judgment against parties who failed to respond. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Order
On August 20, 2025, Benjamin Carson, Jr., James Murphy, and Phillip P. Scala appeared and filed an opposition to Finkelstein’s motion. The court stated that, because courts strongly prefer deciding cases on their merits, it was inclined to extend those defendants’ answer deadline to September 15, 2025, effective as of the earlier deadline. The court also stated that it was inclined to cancel the default-judgment hearing scheduled for August 27, 2025.
The court did not state that it had granted the deadline extension or canceled the hearing. Instead, it ordered Finkelstein to file a letter by noon on August 25, 2025, indicating whether he objected to that approach. The order concludes with “SO ORDERED.”
Effect
The order seeks Finkelstein’s position before the court decides whether to extend the three defendants’ answer deadline and cancel the hearing. It does not resolve the motion for default judgment or the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.