Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 5, 2021

Jaquez v. Mondelez Global LLC

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:20-cv-08015
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jaquez v. Mondelez Global LLC, Judge Failla granted Mondelez’s unopposed motion to set aside its default.

Who this affects

Mondelez Global LLC may defend the case rather than remain in default, and Ramon Jaquez no longer has the procedural advantage of Mondelez’s certificate of default.

What happened

Ramon Jaquez sued Mondelez Global LLC, and the court had entered a certificate of default against Mondelez. Mondelez asked the court to set that default aside, and Jaquez did not oppose the request.

The court applied a rule allowing a default to be set aside for good cause. It considered whether the default was willful, whether Mondelez had potentially valid defenses, and whether setting aside the default would prejudice Jaquez.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla found that the default was not willful, Mondelez had raised potentially valid defenses, and Jaquez would not be prejudiced. The court granted Mondelez’s motion and ordered it to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by January 12, 2021.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jaquez v. Mondelez Global LLC · No. 1:20-cv-08015
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Jan. 5, 2021

Background

The court received Mondelez Global LLC’s unopposed motion and supporting papers seeking to set aside the certificate of default. The opinion does not describe why the default occurred or the underlying claims in the complaint.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), a court may set aside an entry of default for “good cause.” The court applied the Second Circuit’s three-part test: whether the default was willful, whether the defaulting party has potentially meritorious defenses, and whether setting aside the default would prejudice the non-defaulting party. The court also noted the Second Circuit’s preference for resolving disputes on their merits.

Ruling

The court found that Mondelez’s default was not willful, that Mondelez had raised potentially meritorious defenses, and that there was no prejudice to Jaquez, particularly because Jaquez did not oppose the motion. The court granted Mondelez’s motion to set aside the certificate of default. It ordered Mondelez to answer or otherwise respond to Jaquez’s complaint by January 12, 2021.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.