Georgiev v. Adsad, LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-00122
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Georgiev v. Adsad, LLC, Judge Oetken denied Jacob Rifkin’s motions to vacate the default judgment and reopen the case.
Jacob Rifkin, whose motion to vacate the default judgment was denied; Plaintiffs Igor Georgiev, Sanjar Ortikov, and Semen Seredenko, whose $441,902.45 final judgment was not vacated.
What happened
In Georgiev v. Adsad, LLC, Plaintiffs Igor Georgiev, Sanjar Ortikov, and Semen Seredenko sued Adsad, LLC, Aleksander Shapiro, and Jacob Rifkin under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The defendants did not respond, and the court entered a final judgment for the plaintiffs totaling $441,902.45.
More than sixteen months later, Rifkin asked the court to set aside the judgment and reopen the case. He argued that his failure to respond was negligent rather than deliberate, that the plaintiffs would not be harmed, and that he had a defense. The court explained that the rule Rifkin cited did not apply to a final judgment, and that the rule allowing relief for excusable neglect required a motion within one year.
Judge Oetken ruled that Rifkin’s motion was too late and that no exceptional circumstances justified using another rule to avoid the one-year deadline. The court denied Rifkin’s motion to vacate the default judgment and denied his motion to reopen the case.
The detailed version
- Georgiev v. Adsad, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-00122
- James Oetken
- May 17, 2021
Background
Igor Georgiev, Sanjar Ortikov, and Semen Seredenko brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law against Adsad, LLC, Aleksander Shapiro, and Jacob Rifkin. The defendants were served but did not appear or respond. The plaintiffs moved for default judgment, and the court granted that unopposed motion. The Clerk later entered a final judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $441,902.45.
On February 10, 2021, counsel appeared for Rifkin. Rifkin moved to vacate the default judgment and reopen the case. He relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), arguing that there was good cause to set aside the judgment. He asserted that he had not deliberately or egregiously failed to participate, but had negligently assumed that Adsad, LLC would retain counsel for him. He also argued that the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced and that he had a potentially valid defense.
Court’s analysis
The court held that Rule 55(c) did not apply because the judgment was final. Under Rule 55(c), a final default judgment may be set aside under Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(1) allows relief for excusable neglect, but Rule 60(c) requires a motion based on that ground to be filed no more than one year after the judgment is entered. Because Rifkin filed his motion more than sixteen months after the final judgment, the court held that the motion was time-barred.
The court also rejected any attempt to obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a provision allowing relief for another reason that justifies it. The court explained that this provision cannot ordinarily be used to avoid Rule 60(b)(1)’s one-year limit. An exception may exist in exceptional circumstances that prevented a party from seeking relief within the one-year period. The court found no such circumstances here because Rifkin had received ample notice of the motion for default judgment and the entry of judgment. The court stated that nothing prevented him from participating in the case or seeking timely relief, and that his decision to ignore postings and mailings about the case did not justify an exception.
Ruling
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Rifkin’s motion to vacate the default judgment against him. The court also denied his motion to reopen the case and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions at Docket Numbers 57 and 59.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.