Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 18, 2021

Diedhiou v. The Republic of Senegal

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:20-cv-05685
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Diedhiou v. Senegal, Judge Ramos granted Senegal’s motion to vacate the clerk’s default certificate and ordered a response deadline.

Who this affects

Senegal no longer faced the clerk’s certificate of default, and the parties were required to jointly set a deadline for Senegal to respond to the complaint.

What happened

In Diedhiou v. The Republic of Senegal, Pape M. Diedhiou sought a clerk’s certificate of default against Senegal after Senegal did not initially respond. The court had issued the certificate, and Senegal then sought to have it vacated.

Senegal said the service papers were not delivered to the new foreign affairs minister because of a mailroom error. It also identified possible defenses and said its lawyer had tried to negotiate more time to respond. The court noted that Senegal acted promptly and that vacating the certificate was unlikely to significantly harm Diedhiou.

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Senegal’s motion to vacate the clerk’s certificate of default and directed the parties to agree on a deadline for Senegal to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The request for a pre-motion conference was denied as moot.

The detailed version

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

Case
Diedhiou v. The Republic of Senegal · No. 1:20-cv-05685
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Jan. 18, 2021

Background

Pape M. Diedhiou sued the Republic of Senegal and Teranga, LLC. Diedhiou requested a proposed clerk’s certificate of default against Senegal. After the initial request was denied, Diedhiou moved for reconsideration. The court granted that motion, and the Clerk issued a certificate of default.

Later the same day, Senegal filed a letter seeking a pre-motion conference before moving to vacate the certificate of default. The opinion states that the request for a pre-motion conference was denied as moot.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), a court deciding whether to set aside a clerk’s certificate of default considers whether the default was willful, whether setting it aside would prejudice the opposing party, and whether the party seeking relief has presented a potentially meritorious defense. The court noted that this standard is less demanding than the standard for setting aside a default judgment under Rule 60(b). It also cited the preference for resolving disputes on their merits and the special disfavor toward default judgments against foreign sovereigns.

Senegal’s arguments

Senegal argued that the service package was not delivered to the new Minister of Foreign Affairs because of a mailroom error. Senegal also said it intended to assert defenses based on the statute of frauds, the statute of limitations, and the asserted unavailability of quasi-contract relief. In addition, Senegal said that, after its lawyer filed a notice of appearance, counsel tried in good faith to negotiate an extension of time to respond to the complaint.

Ruling

The court granted Senegal’s motion to vacate the Clerk’s certificate of default. It relied on the court’s preference for deciding disputes on the merits, Senegal’s explanation for its initial delay, Senegal’s prompt effort to seek vacatur, and the early stage of the case. The court also stated that Diedhiou was unlikely to suffer significant prejudice because Senegal sought vacatur on the same day the certificate was issued and before any order to show cause was issued.

The Clerk of Court was instructed to vacate the certificate of default. The parties were instructed to confer and jointly stipulate to a date by which Senegal must answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint, and to file that stipulation by January 22, 2021. The order did not decide the merits of Diedhiou’s claims or Senegal’s proposed defenses.

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.