Frimpong v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-06704
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frimpong v. Rite Aid, Judge Schofield set aside the certificate of default against Rite Aid and AFP Sixteen, allowing responses.
Rite Aid of New York, Inc. and AFP Sixteen Corp. were relieved from the certificate of default and given until November 30, 2022, to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint. Bernice Frimpong’s consented request was granted, and the case’s initial pre-trial deadlines were reset.
What happened
In Frimpong v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc., the court had entered a certificate of default after no answer was filed for Rite Aid of New York, Inc. and AFP Sixteen Corp. The defendants later said they received actual notice on October 6, 2022, and promptly sought counsel.
The defendants jointly asked the court to set aside the default, and Bernice Frimpong agreed. The court found good cause because the defendants did not have actual notice before the certificate was entered, setting it aside would not prejudice Frimpong at this early stage, and the defendants wanted to respond and litigate.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield set aside the certificate of default and ordered the defendants to answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond by November 30, 2022. She also adjourned the initial pre-trial conference to December 7, 2022, and set November 30 deadlines for the joint letter and proposed case-management plan.
The detailed version
- Frimpong v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06704
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 1, 2022
Background
Bernice Frimpong sued Rite Aid of New York, Inc. and AFP Sixteen Corp. The opinion states that the defendants were allegedly served with the complaint on August 25, 2022, through the New York Secretary of State. Frimpong also reported efforts to give the defendants actual notice, including mailing the complaint and summonses to the chief executive officer’s address listed in the New York Department of State directory.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i), an answer was due within 21 days after service of the summons and complaint. No answer was filed, and the Clerk of Court entered a certificate of default on September 30, 2022. On October 31, 2022, Rite Aid appeared. In a letter, the defendants represented that they received actual notice of the lawsuit on October 6, 2022, and promptly sought to retain counsel. They jointly asked the court to set aside the certificate of default, and Frimpong consented to that request.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) allows a court to set aside an entry of default for good cause. Courts consider the willfulness of the default, whether the defendant has potentially meritorious defenses, and prejudice to the non-defaulting party. The court identified several grounds supporting good cause here: the defendants did not have actual notice before the certificate of default was entered; setting aside the default would not prejudice Frimpong at this early stage; and the defendants wished to respond to the complaint and litigate the case.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that there was good cause to set aside the certificate of default. The order required the defendant to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint by November 30, 2022. It also adjourned the initial pre-trial conference to December 7, 2022, and required the joint letter and proposed case-management plan by November 30, 2022. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.