Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 23, 2022

West Coast Servicing, Inc. v. McCarthy Rogers

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:22-cv-06517
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In West Coast Servicing v. McCarthy Rogers, Judge Liman denied default judgment and a mandatory settlement conference, vacated default, and granted in part and denied in part Rogers’s extension motion.

Who this affects

Rogers was allowed to defend the case rather than remain subject to the entry of default, while West Coast Servicing could not obtain default judgment at this stage. The order also set deadlines affecting both parties.

What happened

West Coast Servicing, Inc. v. McCarthy Rogers concerns Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and Rogers’s request for more time to answer. Rogers also requested a mandatory settlement conference under New York law.

The court denied the settlement-conference request because that New York provision does not bind federal courts. It vacated the entry of default after finding that Rogers showed good cause, including that her default was not willful, she might have a defense involving equity in the property, and setting aside the default would not prejudice West Coast Servicing. The court also set an answer deadline of November 29, 2022.

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied West Coast Servicing’s motion for default judgment, vacated the entry of default as to Rogers, and granted in part and denied in part Rogers’s motion for an extension of time to file an answer.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
West Coast Servicing, Inc. v. McCarthy Rogers · No. 1:22-cv-06517
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Nov. 23, 2022

Background

The court held a conference concerning two motions: West Coast Servicing, Inc.’s motion for default judgment and Rogers’s motion for an extension of time to file an answer. Rogers also requested a mandatory settlement conference under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3408.

Settlement conference

The court denied Rogers’s request for a mandatory settlement conference under § 3408. It held that the provision does not bind federal courts. The court stated that settlement conferences in federal court are governed instead by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Default and extension of time

The court applied the standard for setting aside an entry of default under Rule 55(c). It considered whether Rogers’s default was willful, whether she had presented a potentially meritorious defense, and whether setting aside the default would prejudice West Coast Servicing. The court also noted that courts apply a less rigorous standard when addressing an entry of default rather than a final default judgment, and that courts generally prefer resolving disputes on their merits.

The court found that Rogers had shown good cause, although it described the question as close. Rogers’s counsel represented that Rogers had initially retained another attorney whom she believed would handle the matter, but later had to retain new counsel. The court concluded that the default was not willful. Rogers also represented that she might have enough equity in the property to obtain a loan that could satisfy West Coast Servicing and possibly lead to a settlement. Finally, the case had been pending for only several months, so setting aside the default would not prejudice West Coast Servicing. The court stated that West Coast Servicing objected but offered no reasons why the entry of default should not be vacated.

Ruling and case schedule

The court vacated the entry of default as to Rogers, granted Rogers’s motion for an extension of time to file her answer, and denied West Coast Servicing’s motion for default judgment. In the order’s final disposition, the court stated that it “GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART” the motion for an extension of time to file an answer. Rogers was directed to file her answer by November 29, 2022. The court also set March 31, 2023 as the discovery deadline and April 7, 2023 as the deadline for summary-judgment motions, and scheduled a post-discovery status conference for March 31, 2023. The parties were directed to file a letter addressing whether they wanted a referral for settlement purposes to Magistrate Judge Aaron or to mediation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.