Gunnells v. Teutul

Background

The court had entered default judgment against Orange County Choppers, Inc., Michael Joseph Teutul, and Paul Teutul on February 18, 2020. The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate, or set aside, that judgment. They argued that their default resulted from alleged misconduct by their attorney, Thomas Vasti, and that they had defenses to Scott Gunnells’s copyright-infringement claims.

The motion papers alleged that the defendants had asked Mr. Vasti to handle the lawsuit and had communicated with him about it, but that he failed to take appropriate action. The papers also alleged that the defendants had potentially meritorious defenses and that vacating the default judgment would not prejudice Mr. Gunnells. Those assertions were made in support of the defendants’ motion; the June 1 order did not resolve their truth or decide the motion.

Order

The court ordered Mr. Vasti to respond to the allegations in the plaintiff’s moving papers, which were attached as Exhibit A to the order. The response had to be filed on the docket as a sworn affidavit or declaration by June 8, 2020.

Warning and effect

Judge Jed S. Rakoff stated that a failure to respond would be considered an admission of the allegations in the moving papers and could warrant referral to the court’s grievance committee or the appropriate state disciplinary committee.

The opinion text provided does not state that the motion to vacate the default judgment was granted or denied. The June 1 order instead required a response from Mr. Vasti before the court addressed the motion.