Nevels v. City Of New York
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-10074
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Nevels v. City of New York, Judge Oetken granted Create’s request to vacate its default and denied Nevels’s request for default judgment.
The ruling allowed Create, Inc. and Create Young Adult Residences to defend against Nevels’s claims and denied Nevels an immediate default judgment; it did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Nevels v. City of New York, Antonio Nevels asked the court to enter a default judgment against Create, Inc. and Create Young Adult Residences after they did not timely answer the complaint. Create asked the court to cancel the clerk’s entry of default.
The court considered whether Create’s failure to answer was deliberate, whether Create had a potentially valid defense, and whether Nevels would be harmed by allowing the case to continue. The court found that Create’s default was careless but not deliberate, that Create had offered evidence supporting a possible defense, and that Nevels would not be meaningfully harmed by the delay.
Judge Oetken granted Create’s motion to vacate the certificate of default and denied Nevels’s motion for default judgment. The ruling did not decide whether Nevels will ultimately win or lose his underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Nevels v. City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-10074
- James Oetken
- June 3, 2022
Background
Antonio Nevels sued the City of New York and others. The motions addressed here concerned only Nevels’s request for default judgment against Create, Inc. and Create Young Adult Residences, which the opinion refers to collectively as “Create.” Create was served on January 25, 2022, and its answer was due on February 15, 2022. Nevels obtained a clerk’s certificate of default on February 17, 2022, and moved for default judgment on April 4, 2022. Create filed notices of appearance on April 8 and moved on April 12 to vacate the certificate of default.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), a court may set aside an entry of default for “good cause.” The court considers whether the default was willful, whether the defendant has a potentially valid defense, and whether setting aside the default would prejudice the other party. Default judgments are generally disfavored because courts prefer to resolve disputes on their merits.
Court’s analysis
The court found no basis to conclude that Create’s default was willful. Rachel Bloxson, the Vice President for Human Resources of Argus Community, Inc., which operates Create’s programs, stated that she never received or saw the summons and complaint. The court acknowledged that the default was careless, particularly because the default-judgment papers were served at the same location and Bloxson received those later papers, but it concluded that this did not amount to a deliberate default.
The court also found that Create had provided some evidence supporting a defense. Nevels asserted claims involving negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; and negligence based on an alleged failure to enforce a no-weapons policy. Create asserted that it took reasonable safety measures, including proper staffing, metal detectors, a no-weapons policy, responses to dangerous situations, and calls to police when necessary. The court concluded that these allegations raised a sufficient question about whether Create provided the duty of care owed to its residents.
Finally, the court found no evidence that Nevels would be meaningfully prejudiced by setting aside the default. The case was in its early stages, and only a relatively limited time had passed between the start of the action and Create’s appearance.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Create’s motion to vacate the certificate of default and denied Nevels’s motion for default judgment. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the two motions. The opinion did not resolve the merits of Nevels’s underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.