Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services Inc.
Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services Inc., Kate Spade, LLC, Tapestry, Inc., and Case-Mate, Inc.; Case-Mate, Inc. v. Vinci Brands, LLC; Candlewood Partners, LLC, CWD Armor Management, LLC, Onward Brands, LLC, and ACS Group Acquisitions, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Vinci Brands v. Case-Mate, Judge Schofield vacated the Candlewood Parties’ default, denied default judgment, and allowed their answer.
The order affects CWD Armor Management, LLC and Candlewood Partners, LLC by removing the certificate of default and allowing them to file an answer and affirmative defenses. It also affects Case-Mate, Inc., whose motion for default judgment was denied and whose scheduled hearing was canceled.
What happened
In Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services Inc. and related counterclaims, Case-Mate asked the court to enter default judgment against CWD Armor Management, LLC and Candlewood Partners, LLC, called the Candlewood Parties. The Clerk had previously entered a certificate of default after they did not timely answer Case-Mate’s amended counterclaims.
The Candlewood Parties asked the court to set aside the certificate of default, explaining that their failure resulted from an inadvertent docketing oversight. They also said they had defenses and that Case-Mate would not be harmed by setting aside the default.
The court found good cause, set aside and vacated the certificate of default, denied Case-Mate’s motion for default judgment, canceled the scheduled hearing, and granted the Candlewood Parties leave to file their answer and affirmative defenses. Judge Schofield ordered that filing by September 25, 2025.
The detailed version
- Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05138
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 22, 2025
Background
Case-Mate, Inc. filed a motion for entry of default against CWD Armor Management, LLC and Candlewood Partners, LLC, which the order calls the Candlewood Parties. The Court directed the Clerk to enter a certificate of default, and the Clerk entered that certificate on September 2, 2025. The Court later issued an order to show cause why default judgment should not be entered and scheduled a hearing for October 7, 2025. Case-Mate then filed its motion for default judgment.
Motion to Set Aside Default
The Candlewood Parties asked to set aside the Clerk’s certificate of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c). The court considered whether there was “good cause,” including whether the default was willful, whether the parties had potentially valid defenses, and whether setting aside the default would prejudice Case-Mate.
The Candlewood Parties stated that they had not willfully disregarded Case-Mate’s amended counterclaims and that their failure to answer on time resulted from an inadvertent docketing oversight. They also represented that their proposed answer and affirmative defenses contained meritorious defenses and that Case-Mate would not suffer prejudice. The court noted that the Candlewood Parties had made various efforts to participate in the proceeding, including participating in discovery.
Ruling
The court found good cause to set aside and vacate the certificate of default. It stated that the Candlewood Parties did not appear to have willfully disregarded the amended counterclaims, appeared to have meritorious defenses, and would not cause prejudice to Case-Mate by having the default set aside.
The court therefore set aside and vacated the Certificate of Default. It denied Case-Mate’s motion for default judgment, canceled the October 7, 2025 hearing, and granted the Candlewood Parties’ request for leave to file their answer and affirmative defenses. The court ordered the Candlewood Parties to file those documents by September 25, 2025. The order did not decide the underlying counterclaims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.