Thorpe v. City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-05995
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Thorpe v. City of New York, Judge McMahon denied default judgment against Sergeant Tyrone Joseph and granted his motion to vacate the default.
Marcus Thorpe’s request for a default judgment was rejected, while Sergeant Tyrone Joseph regained the opportunity to defend against the claims and remained scheduled for trial. The City’s Law Department was required to answer for Joseph by August 12, 2022. Discovery remained closed, and the trial date was unchanged.
What happened
In Thorpe v. City of New York, Marcus Thorpe sought a default judgment against Sergeant Tyrone Joseph, who had been added as a defendant but had not answered. The case was scheduled for trial, and the parties had completed discovery without treating Joseph as an active participant.
The court concluded that Thorpe had not shown that the complaint established Joseph’s liability, as required for a default judgment. The court also found that Joseph had potentially valid defenses, that his failure to answer was not deliberate, and that allowing him to defend the case would not unfairly harm Thorpe.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Thorpe’s motion for default judgment and granted the motion to vacate Joseph’s default. Joseph remained a defendant, had to answer by August 12, 2022, and would proceed to the scheduled trial without reopening discovery or taking a deposition beforehand.
The detailed version
- Thorpe v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-05995
- Colleen McMahon
- July 28, 2022
Background
Marcus Thorpe’s case was scheduled for trial on September 12, 2022. Sergeant Tyrone Joseph was added as a defendant in the Second Amended Complaint filed on January 8, 2020. The complaint alleged that Joseph approached Thorpe, escorted him from a hospital room, and witnessed the altercation in which Officer Senajor struck Thorpe’s eye with a baton. It did not allege that Joseph used force against Thorpe, arrested him, or participated in his prosecution.
Joseph did not answer the complaint. The court had extended his time to respond, including through pandemic-related deadline extensions, but the City’s Law Department did not complete the steps needed to represent him. Thorpe’s attorneys also did not pursue Joseph’s participation while discovery and motion practice continued. In 2022, new counsel for Thorpe obtained a certificate of default and moved for a default judgment. The City then appeared for Joseph and moved to vacate the default.
Rules the Court Applied
A default does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to a judgment. The plaintiff must show that the complaint’s uncontested allegations establish the defendant’s liability for each claim. A court may also set aside an entry of default for good cause by considering whether the default was deliberate, whether the defendant has a potentially valid defense, and whether vacating the default would unfairly harm the plaintiff.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Thorpe’s motion for default judgment did not include evidence or meaningful legal argument showing that Joseph was liable. Thorpe’s opposition to the motion to vacate effectively conceded that he had not proved the elements of the claims and instead relied on Joseph’s default.
The court also found that Joseph had potentially valid defenses. It explained that six of the seven claims asserted against him likely would have been dismissed at the summary-judgment stage if he had participated earlier: negligence, excessive force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and false arrest. The complaint did not allege that Joseph used force, assaulted Thorpe, initiated or advanced the prosecution, participated in a conspiracy, or arrested Thorpe. The remaining claim—failure to intervene to stop the assault—presented factual issues, but the court identified possible defenses, including that the assault happened too quickly for Joseph to stop it or that Officer Senajor acted in self-defense.
The court determined that Joseph’s default was not deliberate and resulted from the City Law Department’s failure to function properly during the pandemic period. It also found no unfair harm to Thorpe because he had opportunities to involve Joseph in the case earlier, including by seeking a new answer deadline or taking Joseph’s deposition.
Ruling and Case Management Orders
The court denied Thorpe’s motion for default judgment and granted the motion to vacate the default. The certificate of default was vacated. Joseph remained a party, and the City’s Law Department was directed to file an answer for him by August 12, 2022.
The court did not reopen discovery, allow either side to depose Joseph before trial, or reschedule the September 12 trial. Joseph would proceed to trial on all claims then asserted against him. The court noted that some claims might later be dismissed, including on a directed-verdict motion after Thorpe presented his evidence, but it did not make those claim-specific rulings in this order.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.