Haley v. Weinstein
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-09109
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Haley v. Weinstein, Judge Cronan granted Weinstein’s motion to vacate the default, allowing him to respond to Haley’s complaint.
Harvey Weinstein’s default was set aside, allowing him to answer or otherwise respond to Miriam Haley’s complaint; the order did not decide Haley’s underlying claims.
What happened
In Haley v. Weinstein, Miriam Haley sued Harvey Weinstein for assault, battery, and violating the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act. Weinstein did not timely respond, and the court entered a default against him.
Weinstein later obtained counsel and asked the court to vacate, or set aside, the default. Haley did not identify any prejudice from the delay and consented to the motion, according to the opinion.
Judge John P. Cronan granted Weinstein’s motion to vacate the Certificate of Default. The court ordered Weinstein to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by February 24, 2021.
The detailed version
- Haley v. Weinstein · No. 1:20-cv-09109
- John Cronan
- Feb. 22, 2021
Background
Miriam Haley brought claims against Harvey Weinstein for assault, battery, and violating the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act. Weinstein was served with the summons and complaint on November 18, 2020, and his response was due December 9, 2020. After he did not answer or otherwise respond, the court issued a Certificate of Default on January 22, 2021.
Imran Ansari, Esq., later entered an appearance for Weinstein. The court then considered Weinstein’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) to vacate the Certificate of Default. Haley did not identify prejudice from the delay and, as reported by Weinstein, consented to the motion.
Legal Standard
Under Rule 55(c), a court may 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 Haley, and whether Weinstein presented a meritorious defense. The court also noted the Second Circuit’s preference for resolving disputes on their merits and its instruction that good cause should be construed generously.
Court’s Analysis
The court found no basis to conclude that Weinstein’s default was willful. Weinstein represented that the delay resulted from taking steps to retain counsel, and counsel entered an appearance shortly after Haley’s counsel contacted him about the case.
The prejudice factor also favored setting aside the default. Haley had not identified any prejudice, and the court found that the relatively short delay was unlikely to cause loss of evidence, discovery complications, fraud, or gamesmanship.
The court concluded that Weinstein’s asserted defense—that he denied Haley’s claims and maintained that any intimate relations were consensual—was a conclusory denial unsupported by evidence or affidavits. The court stated that this showing was insufficient by itself to establish a meritorious defense. It nevertheless determined that it did not need to decide that factor further because the other two factors strongly favored relief, Haley consented, and disputes are generally preferred to be resolved on their merits.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan granted Weinstein’s Motion to Vacate the Certificate of Default. The court ordered Weinstein to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by February 24, 2021. It directed the Clerk of Court to vacate the entry of default at Docket Number 12 and terminate the motions pending at Docket Numbers 21 and 22. The order did not decide the underlying assault, battery, or statutory claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.