Grazette v. Rockefeller

Background

David Grazette filed the action representing himself and later filed an amended complaint naming 25 individual and institutional defendants. Among them were Dr. Matthew Levin and Dr. Smita Agarkar, whom Grazette alleged he encountered at Gracie Square Hospital. Grazette filed proof that the amended complaint had been served on Levin and Agarkar, and neither individual had filed a notice of appearance.

On March 24 and 25, 2021, Grazette filed motions for default judgment against Levin and Agarkar. The court had initially deferred consideration of those motions while the case was stayed for an investigation by the City of New York’s Civilian Complaint Review Board. After the investigation ended, the court lifted the stay and addressed the motions.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 provides a two-step process for obtaining a default judgment. First, the clerk may enter a default when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend. Second, the court may enter a default judgment, but it must still determine whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim and what relief may properly be awarded. Allegations about liability may be treated as admitted after default, but allegations about damages are not automatically accepted as true.

Reasons for denial

The court denied both motions for three dispositive reasons. First, Grazette had not obtained a certificate of default from the Clerk of Court. The court said that he needed to comply with Local Civil Rule 55.1, including filing a request and an affidavit addressing the defendant’s status, failure to defend, and proper service. Local Civil Rule 55.2 also required service of the issued certificate with the motion for default judgment.

Second, the motions were only two sentences long and did not identify the claims for which Grazette sought default judgment against either defendant. The materials also did not allow the court to determine whether the amended complaint adequately alleged liability. In addition, Grazette supplied no proof of damages, so the court could not calculate damages with reasonable certainty.

Third, the court found that the continued participation of other defendants made default judgments against Levin and Agarkar inappropriate at that time. According to the amended complaint, Levin and Agarkar were employees in the New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, which was also a defendant and continued to deny liability. The court concluded that entering judgments against the employees while the related institutional defendant continued litigating could create inconsistent results and prejudice the non-defaulting defendants.

Disposition

The court denied Grazette’s motions for default judgment against Levin and Agarkar. It stated that Grazette may refile the motions only after the claims against the other defendants are resolved. The court also concluded that oral argument was unnecessary and denied Grazette’s motion for oral argument. Finally, it certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required court fees.