Cordero v. Pro Music Group, LLC
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-04285
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cordero v. Pro Music Group, LLC, Judge Rochon accepted Pro Music Group’s late answer after finding good cause.
Pro Music Group, LLC, whose late answer was accepted as the operative answer; Rafael Cordero was the plaintiff and did not oppose the request.
What happened
In Cordero v. Pro Music Group, LLC, Pro Music Group filed its answer on September 30, 2022, although the deadline was June 30, 2022. The company asked the court to accept the late filing and address any resulting default.
The court found good cause to allow the late response. Although Pro Music Group’s belief that settlement would resolve the case did not make the delay non-willful, the plaintiff did not oppose the request, and delay alone did not establish prejudice. Pro Music Group also said its answer contained defenses with merit.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the request and ordered that Pro Music Group’s answer at ECF No. 14 be accepted as the operative answer.
The detailed version
- Cordero v. Pro Music Group, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-04285
- Rochon
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
Pro Music Group, LLC filed an answer on September 30, 2022, after the June 30, 2022 deadline. It asked the court to accept the late answer. The court treated the late filing as comparable to a request to vacate a default, meaning to set aside a failure to respond on time.
Court’s Analysis
Applying the standards in Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), the court found good cause to permit the late response and to address any default. Pro Music Group said it had not answered because it believed the case would be resolved through settlement. The court stated that settlement discussions do not remove a defendant’s responsibility to file a timely response, so Pro Music Group had not shown that its default was non-willful.
The court nevertheless found that the other considerations favored accepting the answer. The plaintiff did not oppose the delayed filing, and delay alone did not establish prejudice. Pro Music Group had also filed an answer that it claimed included meritorious defenses, although the court did not evaluate those defenses. The court emphasized the preference for resolving disputes on their merits.
Disposition
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the request. The court ordered that Pro Music Group’s answer at ECF No. 14 be accepted as the operative answer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.