Ravazzani v. Park

Background

Pablo Ravazzani brought a copyright infringement action based on allegations that Jessica Park and Coming Soon, LLC, doing business as Ampersand as Apostrophe, hired him in 2019 to photograph clothing items and handbags. Ravazzani alleged that he delivered 32 photographs and gave Defendants usage rights for one year. He further alleged that, after that period ended, Defendants published an edited version of one photograph without authorization.

Ravazzani filed the complaint on April 24, 2024. Defendants were served in August 2024 but did not answer or otherwise defend the case within the required time. The Clerk entered a certificate of default on October 30, 2024. On January 10, 2025, the court entered a default judgment for copyright infringement, awarding $60,000 in statutory damages and $19,535 in attorneys’ fees and costs, for a total of $79,535.

After Defendants paid nothing toward the judgment, Ravazzani moved to release funds in July 2025. Defendants appeared on the docket for the first time on August 12, 2025, and filed the motion addressed in this order.

Motion and Legal Standard

Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief from a final judgment in specified circumstances. Because the judgment had already been entered, the court treated Rule 60(b), rather than Rule 55(c), as controlling. The court construed the motion as relying on Rule 60(b)(1), which covers mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

The court explained that, before applying the broader factors used for post-default-judgment motions, it should determine whether Defendants’ failure to respond qualified as excusable neglect. Under the applicable standard, courts consider the danger of prejudice to the other party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether the party acted in good faith. The court stated that the reason for the delay is generally the most important factor.

Court’s Analysis

Defendants asserted that Park’s physical condition and health problems caused the default. Park stated that she had been hospitalized for six months at an Ayurvedic hospital in India, later received medical treatment in New York, and had not checked the company email since June 2023 or earlier.

The court found that Park had not submitted documentation supporting her claims of illness or hospitalization. Her declaration referred to a handwritten journal and photographs and videos that she could submit, but she provided no evidence confirming that she was hospitalized during the relevant period. The court stated that her unsupported assertions, including the absence of dates, did not constitute the highly convincing evidence required to show excusable neglect.

The court also stated that equitable considerations favored Defendants in some respects because a substantial amount of money was at stake. Because Park claimed to possess evidence of her hospitalization, the court said it would be inclined to find excusable neglect and consider the broader post-default-judgment factors if Defendants renewed the motion with medical records fully substantiating her illness and hospitalization.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken DENIED Defendants’ motion to vacate the judgment without prejudice to renewal on or before October 31, 2025, accompanied by medical records that fully substantiate Park’s claims of excusable neglect. The court stated that any medical records could be filed under seal to protect Park’s confidentiality. The order did not vacate the existing default judgment.