Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 31, 2025

Ewers v. Montefiore Medical Center

Judge
Rearden
Docket
1:23-cv-09386
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Narline Ewers v. Montefiore Medical Center, Judge Rearden denied default judgment and vacated the Clerk’s entry of default.

Who this affects

Narline Ewers’s request for a default judgment was denied, and Montefiore Medical Center’s Clerk’s entry of default was vacated. The opinion left the underlying employment-discrimination claims and Montefiore’s defenses unresolved.

What happened

Narline Ewers sued Montefiore Medical Center under federal and New York employment-discrimination laws. Ewers asked the court to enter judgment because Montefiore had initially failed to respond, but Montefiore appeared after receiving notice of the pending request and said it had strong defenses.

The court denied Ewers’s motion for default judgment. It found good cause to set aside the default because Montefiore’s delay was not willful, Ewers had not shown that the delay caused prejudice, and the court favored resolving disputes on their merits. The court did not decide the defenses in Montefiore’s motion to dismiss.

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden vacated the Clerk’s certificate of default. The case therefore was not resolved by default judgment, and the court’s order left the merits of the claims and defenses for later proceedings.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ewers v. Montefiore Medical Center · No. 1:23-cv-09386
Judge
Rearden
Date
Oct. 31, 2025

Background

Narline Ewers filed the complaint against Montefiore Medical Center while representing herself. She alleged violations of Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion states that the court previously found Ewers’s submissions insufficient to establish that Montefiore was liable as a matter of law and directed her to file a corrected motion if she wished to continue seeking a default judgment.

Montefiore appeared on July 14, 2025, three days after receiving notice of the pending default-judgment request. Its counsel said they had not been notified of the action until July 11, 2025, and asserted that Montefiore had strong defenses. The parties later agreed to a briefing schedule for Montefiore’s motion to dismiss. Montefiore filed that motion on September 9, 2025.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) allows a court to set aside a clerk’s entry of default when the defaulting party shows “good cause.” Courts weigh whether the default was willful, whether setting it aside would prejudice the opposing party, and whether the defendant has presented a potentially meritorious defense.

The court found that Montefiore’s default was not willful because it appeared promptly after receiving notice and expressed a desire to defend the case. The court also found that Ewers had not shown prejudice. Delay by itself was not enough; prejudice would generally require a showing such as lost evidence, more difficult discovery, or a greater opportunity for fraud or collusion. The court reserved judgment on the merits of Montefiore’s defenses until the motion to dismiss was fully briefed, but stated that the lack of willfulness and prejudice was sufficient to support setting aside the default.

Ruling

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden found good cause to set aside the Clerk’s entry of default against Montefiore Medical Center. The court denied Ewers’s motion for a default judgment and vacated the Clerk’s certificate of default. The opinion did not decide the merits of Ewers’s employment-discrimination claims or Montefiore’s defenses.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.