J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Mendez
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-03907
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In J & J Sports Productions v. Mendez, Judge Oetken set aside the defendants’ default and denied J & J Sports’s motion for default judgment.
The ruling benefits Francisco Mendez and Mendez Boxing Fifth Ave., Inc. by setting aside the default and allows the case to proceed without a default judgment for J & J Sports Productions, Inc.; the opinion does not resolve the underlying dispute.
What happened
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. sued Francisco Mendez and Mendez Boxing Fifth Ave., Inc. over an alleged unauthorized viewing of a pay-per-view boxing match. The defendants did not respond on time, and the Clerk entered default against them. J & J Sports then asked for a default judgment, while the defendants asked the court to set aside the default.
The court applied a rule allowing a default to be set aside for good cause. It considered whether the failure to respond was intentional, whether setting aside the default would harm J & J Sports, and whether the defendants had a potentially valid defense. The court found that the delay was not intentional, that J & J Sports had shown no prejudice beyond delay, and that the defendants had offered a potential complete defense, including that they had a valid license to view the broadcast.
Judge Oetken granted the defendants’ motion to set aside the default and denied J & J Sports Productions, Inc.’s motion for default judgment. The court directed the Clerk to close both motions. The opinion did not decide the underlying allegation about unauthorized viewing.
The detailed version
- J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Mendez · No. 1:19-cv-03907
- James Oetken
- Feb. 4, 2020
Background
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. sued Francisco Mendez and Mendez Boxing Fifth Ave., Inc. over an alleged unauthorized viewing of a pay-per-view boxing match. The complaint was filed on May 1, 2019. The defendants did not answer or otherwise appear within the required period, so the Clerk of Court entered default against both defendants on July 8, 2019.
J & J Sports moved for default judgment. The defendants moved to set aside the entries of default.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) allows a court to set aside an entry of default for “good cause.” The court considered three factors: whether the default was willful, whether setting it aside would prejudice the opposing party, and whether the defendants presented a potentially meritorious defense. A meritorious defense requires evidence that, if proven at trial, would constitute a complete defense—not merely conclusory denials.
Court’s analysis
The court found that all three factors favored setting aside the default.
First, the default was not willful. The defendants attributed their failure to respond to delays and miscommunications arising from Mendez’s health problems. The court characterized the conduct as, at most, negligent rather than intentional.
Second, setting aside the default would not prejudice J & J Sports. The court stated that delay alone is not enough to establish prejudice, and J & J Sports had not asserted any other basis for finding prejudice.
Third, the defendants presented a potentially meritorious defense. Their answer asserted several complete defenses, including that they had a valid license to view the broadcast. The court found that this was sufficient under the applicable standard.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the defendants’ motion to set aside the default and denied J & J Sports Productions, Inc.’s motion for default judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 18 and 26. The ruling addressed the default and default-judgment motions; it did not decide whether the defendants actually engaged in unauthorized viewing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.