West Coast Servicing, Inc. v. McCarthy Rogers
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-06517
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
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.
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
- West Coast Servicing, Inc. v. McCarthy Rogers · No. 1:22-cv-06517
- Lewis Liman
- 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.