Hernandez v. Miller

Background

Larry Miller removed the action from New York Supreme Court to the federal district court. Miller and Eric Eisbrenner each filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for a more definite statement. Eisbrenner’s motion invoked rules concerning personal jurisdiction, service, and failure to state a claim. Hernandez later filed an amended complaint.

After the amended complaint was filed, both defendants asked the court to consider their pending dismissal motions in light of the amended allegations. Eisbrenner also requested limited discovery to establish that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Before that, the Clerk had entered a Certificate of Default against Eisbrenner, and Hernandez had sought a default judgment. Eisbrenner opposed that request and stated that he had not been served with the state-court complaint.

Eisbrenner’s Default

Because no default judgment had yet been entered, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c). That rule permits a court to set aside an entry of default for good cause. The court considered whether Eisbrenner’s default was intentional, whether setting it aside would prejudice Hernandez, and whether Eisbrenner had presented a potentially valid defense.

The court found that Eisbrenner’s delay was not intentional because he stated that he had not been served and filed a responsive motion after learning of the action. The court also found no cognizable prejudice to Hernandez, particularly because the case was at an early stage and discovery had not begun. Finally, the court found that Eisbrenner had met the low threshold for presenting a potentially valid defense because the facts he offered, if proven, could defeat Hernandez’s claims based on the absence of personal jurisdiction. The court therefore set aside the Clerk’s Certificate of Default as to Eisbrenner.

Pending Motions and Disposition

The court explained that when a plaintiff properly files an amended complaint while a motion to dismiss is pending, the court may either deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate it using the amended complaint. Because both defendants had appeared, filed dismissal motions, and asked the court to consider those motions under the amended complaint, the court granted that request.

The order did not grant or deny the underlying motions to dismiss. It granted defendants’ request that the court hear those motions in light of the amended complaint. It denied Eisbrenner’s request for limited discovery without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar him from renewing that request. The court also vacated Eisbrenner’s Certificate of Default and directed the Clerk to close the motion at Document 27.