Lee v. Yang
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-07934
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lee v. Yang, Judge Schofield set aside the default, set filing deadlines, and stayed discovery pending a proposed dismissal motion.
Erica Lee and the defendants, including Andrew Yang; the order sets aside the entry of default, establishes filing deadlines, and stays discovery.
What happened
In Lee v. Yang, the court held a conference about Erica Lee’s motion for default judgment and the defendants’ motion to set aside the Clerk’s Certificate of Default.
The court found good cause to set aside the entry of default. It also set deadlines for Lee and the defendants to file letters or other documents and stayed discovery while the court considers the defendants’ proposed motion to dismiss.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield’s order does not state the reasons given at the conference or decide the underlying claims. It also does not expressly state how Lee’s motion for default judgment was resolved.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Yang · No. 1:21-cv-07934
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 24, 2022
Background
Erica Lee sued Andrew Yang and other defendants. The court held a conference on February 23, 2022, concerning Lee’s motion for default judgment and the defendants’ motion to set aside the Clerk’s Certificate of Default. The order does not describe the underlying claims or state the reasons given at the conference.
Rulings
The court ordered that good cause existed to set aside the entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c). The order does not expressly state that Lee’s motion for default judgment was granted or denied.
Deadlines and discovery
By March 23, 2022, Lee had to file a letter stating whether she would proceed without a lawyer, or her counsel had to file notices of appearance. By the same date, the defendants could file a pre-motion letter anticipating a motion to dismiss. By April 13, 2022, Lee had to respond to the defendants’ letter or file an amended complaint. The court stayed discovery while it considers the defendants’ proposed motion to dismiss.
Effect of the order
The order sets aside the entry of default, establishes procedural deadlines, and pauses discovery. It does not decide the merits of the underlying claims or the proposed motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.