Vertical Aviation No. 1 LLC v. The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and…
Vertical Aviation No. 1 LLC v. The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-04970
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vertical Aviation v. Trinidad and Tobago, Judge Vyskocil denied default judgment, conditionally vacated the default, and set response deadlines.
The order directly affected Vertical Aviation No. 1 LLC and the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago by denying the stated default-judgment motion, vacating the default conditionally, and requiring the Government to respond to the complaint.
What happened
In Vertical Aviation No. 1 LLC v. The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, the court held a hearing about the plaintiff’s request for default judgment and the defendant’s opposition and request to undo the default. The defendant’s lawyers appeared specially and reserved jurisdictional and sovereign-immunity defenses.
The court denied the order’s stated motion for default judgment and vacated the default on the condition that the defendant answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by March 15, 2021. The parties also had to report by that date on the status, but not the substance, of settlement discussions.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil explained that default judgments against foreign sovereigns are strongly disfavored and found that the defendant’s failure to respond was not willful on the record described. The court also set a February 19 deadline for motions concerning disclosure of its prior work relationship with defense counsel and warned that missed deadlines could lead to sanctions.
The detailed version
- Vertical Aviation No. 1 LLC v. The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and… · No. 1:20-cv-04970
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 14, 2021
Background
The court held a telephonic hearing on February 12, 2021, concerning Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and Defendant’s opposition and request to vacate the default. Counsel for all parties attended. Defendant’s counsel appeared specially, meaning counsel appeared for a limited purpose, and expressly reserved jurisdictional and sovereign-immunity defenses.
Rulings
The order states that Defendant’s motion for default judgment was DENIED and that the default was VACATED on the condition that Defendant answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by March 15, 2021. The court separately ordered Defendant to answer or otherwise respond by that date.
The court also ordered the parties to file, by February 19, 2021, any motions alleging a conflict or seeking relief concerning the court’s disclosure of its prior work relationship with Linda H. Martin, Defendant’s counsel. By March 15, 2021, the parties had to file a joint letter describing the status, but not the substance, of settlement negotiations. The court warned that failure to meet the deadlines or comply with other terms of the order could result in sanctions, including preventing a party from pursuing claims or defenses or dismissing claims or defenses.
Reasoning
The court relied on the principle that default judgments are disfavored, particularly when sought against foreign sovereigns. It stated that courts make substantial efforts to avoid such judgments or to set them aside and that doubts about vacating a default should be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief so disputes can, as far as possible, be decided on their merits.
Although the court described Defendant as having been cavalier in handling the litigation, it found that Defendant’s failure to respond was not willful. The court referred to the lead role of the Minister of National Security in managing the litigation while handling a central role in a relatively small government during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.