Katz v. Safe Haven Recovery House, LLC
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:21-cv-08749
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Katz v. Safe Haven Recovery House, LLC, Judge Karas ordered a default-judgment application by April 20, 2022, or warned the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Elana Katz, as administratrix of the estate of Natanel J. Katz, and defendants Safe Haven Recovery House, LLC and Paul D. Conroy. The order required the plaintiff to seek default judgment by April 20, 2022, and warned of possible dismissal for failure to prosecute.
What happened
In Katz v. Safe Haven Recovery House, LLC, Elana Katz, acting for the estate of Natanel J. Katz, brought tort claims against Safe Haven Recovery House, LLC and Paul D. Conroy over Natanel Katz’s death while he was a resident at the facility.
Defense counsel agreed to accept service, but the defendants had not answered or otherwise responded. The Clerk entered a default after Elana Katz filed the required materials, but she had not properly applied for a default judgment.
The court ordered Elana Katz to apply for default judgment by April 20, 2022, under the court’s rules, and warned that the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Judge Kenneth M. Karas did not decide the underlying tort claims.
The detailed version
- Katz v. Safe Haven Recovery House, LLC · No. 7:21-cv-08749
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 5, 2022
Background
Elana Katz sued as administratrix of the estate of Natanel J. Katz. The complaint alleged various torts arising from Natanel Katz’s wrongful death while he was a resident at Safe Haven Recovery House, LLC, a drug treatment facility owned and operated by Paul D. Conroy. Safe Haven Recovery House, LLC and Conroy were the defendants.
Default Proceedings
The plaintiff told the court that defense counsel had agreed to accept service on the defendants’ behalf. She also advised that entering default would likely be necessary because the defendants lacked insurance coverage. The court directed her to apply for entry of default by March 22, 2022.
The plaintiff filed a proposed Clerk’s Certificate of Default and an affirmation stating that the defendants had not answered or otherwise moved against the complaint. The Clerk entered the certificate of default later that day. The plaintiff, however, had not properly applied for default judgment.
Ruling
The court ordered the plaintiff to apply for entry of default judgment under the court’s Individual Rules of Practice for Default Judgment Proceedings by April 20, 2022. The court warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide whether the defendants were liable on the alleged tort claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.