King v. City of New York
- Paul Crotty
- 1:20-cv-08283
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In King v. City of New York, Judge Crotty reopened the case, set aside the default judgment, and denied the fee motion without prejudice as moot.
Andy King may continue litigating after the default judgment was set aside. The City of New York and the New York City Council lost the benefit of that judgment for now, and their attorney-fee motion was denied without prejudice as moot, with permission to refile after the litigation concludes.
What happened
In King v. City of New York, Andy King asked the court to set aside a default judgment entered after he and his lawyers failed to respond to the defendants’ dismissal motion and a court order. King’s lawsuit alleged that his removal from the New York City Council was racially motivated and violated federal law, and that it violated New York law.
The court considered whether the lawyers’ failures resulted from an excusable mistake or neglect. King’s lawyers cited problems accessing their office during the COVID-19 pandemic, moving offices, work on other litigation, and confusion about responsibility for the case. The court found that these reasons did not justify the delay, but also found no bad faith, limited delay, and serious prejudice to King if the judgment remained in place.
Judge Paul A. Crotty granted King’s motion to reopen the case and set aside the default judgment. The court denied the defendants’ attorney-fee motion without prejudice as moot, allowing them to refile it after the litigation ends, and scheduled a conference to discuss next steps.
The detailed version
- King v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-08283
- Paul Crotty
- Apr. 6, 2021
Background
Andy King sued the City of New York and the New York City Council after the Council removed him from elected office following ethics proceedings. The opinion states that King alleged the removal was motivated by racial animus, violating federal law, and was arbitrary and capricious, violating New York state law. The complaint also sought a preliminary injunction reinstating him, but King had not separately moved for that injunction.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on November 12, 2020. King did not respond. The court then ordered him to explain why the motion should not be granted as unopposed, but he did not respond to that order either. On January 5, 2021, the court granted the dismissal motion, and the Clerk entered a default judgment for the defendants. The defendants later moved for attorney’s fees.
After the court held a status conference, it allowed King to seek relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b)(1) permits a court to grant relief from a final default judgment for reasons including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Analysis
The court applied four equitable factors: the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether the movant acted in good faith. The court identified the reason for the delay as the most important factor.
The court found that denying relief would seriously prejudice King because the default judgment would generally have the same final effect as a judgment entered after a trial and could bar him from bringing the same claims again in federal court. The court also found that the delay was not significant, that reopening the case would cause little disruption, and that the record did not show bad faith by King or his lawyers.
King’s lawyers cited their inability to access a law office during the COVID-19 pandemic, a mid-December office move, work on related litigation, and miscommunication about which lawyer was primarily responsible for the case. The court agreed with the defendants that these reasons did not provide a compelling justification for repeatedly missing basic filing and case-monitoring responsibilities. Even so, the court concluded that the other three factors outweighed the unfavorable delay-reason factor.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Crotty granted King’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion to reopen the case and granted the motion to set aside the default judgment. The court denied the defendants’ attorney-fee motion without prejudice as moot. The defendants may refile that motion after the litigation concludes. The court also admonished King’s lawyers to meet future deadlines and scheduled a telephonic conference to discuss the next steps.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.