1199SEIU United HealthCare Workers East v. Alaris Health at Hamilton Park
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-00531
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
In 1199SEIU v. Alaris, Judge Liman denied Respondents’ requests to vacate the default judgment confirming an arbitration award.
Alaris Health at Hamilton Park and Confidence Management Systems remained subject to the default judgment confirming the arbitration award. 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East did not obtain additional attorneys’ fees and costs for opposing the motion.
What happened
In 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East v. Alaris Health at Hamilton Park, the union asked the court to enforce a final arbitration award concerning unpaid contractual wages and a collective bargaining agreement. The court entered a default judgment after Alaris Health at Hamilton Park and Confidence Management Systems did not respond.
The two respondents later asked the court to set aside that judgment, arguing that their lawyer’s neglect and personal and professional difficulties justified reopening the case. They also argued that they might have defenses concerning the damages calculations.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the requests. He found that the respondents’ failure to respond was willful, that they had not shown a valid defense, and that reopening the judgment would prejudice the union. The court also denied relief under the separate provision cited by the respondents and declined to award the union additional attorneys’ fees and costs.
The detailed version
- 1199SEIU United HealthCare Workers East v. Alaris Health at Hamilton Park · No. 1:22-cv-00531
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 28, 2022
Background
The dispute concerned Respondents’ alleged failure to pay employees minimum contractual wage rates and to apply a collective bargaining agreement to employees performing certain work. After multiple arbitration proceedings, the arbitrator issued a final damages award on March 31, 2021.
Petitioner filed a petition on January 20, 2022, asking the court to confirm and enforce that award. The respondents were served with the petition, Petitioner’s motion to confirm the award, the court’s order requiring a response, and a proposed judgment. Neither respondent responded or appeared. On April 11, 2022, the court confirmed the award and granted related prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The court entered a revised proposed judgment on May 11, 2022.
Motion to Vacate
Respondents moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) to vacate the judgment. Rule 60(b)(1) permits relief for excusable neglect; Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief for another extraordinary reason justifying relief from a judgment. Respondents argued that their lawyer, David F. Jasinski, failed to respond because of personal and professional difficulties, including staffing problems, an office move, a family death, and health problems affecting his wife’s parents. They also asserted that the damages calculations might contain errors.
The court evaluated whether the default was willful, whether Respondents had a meritorious defense, and whether vacating the judgment would prejudice Petitioner.
Willfulness
The court found that Respondents’ default was willful. They did not dispute that they received notice of the case and related filings. The court also found that Respondents’ representatives contacted Jasinski several times, received no meaningful response, and nevertheless did not obtain new counsel, ask for an extension, or otherwise alert the court or Petitioner to the problem.
The court rejected the explanation that Jasinski’s conduct excused Respondents’ failure to act. It stated that a lawyer’s conduct is ordinarily attributed to the client and that the circumstances described by Jasinski did not adequately explain the failure to respond. The court also found that Respondents did not diligently monitor the case or establish that they had been assured that counsel was handling it.
Meritorious Defense
The court found that Respondents had not shown a meritorious defense. A party seeking to vacate a default judgment need not prove a defense conclusively, but must provide facts that, if proven, would constitute a complete defense.
Respondents questioned the damages calculations and pointed to an alleged discrepancy in an earlier proposed judgment. The court noted that the earlier proposed judgment was not the one entered. The court had identified and required correction of deficiencies before entering the revised judgment. Respondents did not identify a specific error in the entered judgment or in the court’s confirmation of the arbitration award. The court therefore characterized their arguments as conclusory and insufficient.
Prejudice and Overall Decision
The court found that Petitioner would be prejudiced if the judgment were vacated. It relied on the dispute’s lengthy history, multiple arbitration proceedings, and Respondents’ prior delays in producing information needed to calculate damages and interest. The court concluded that willfulness and the lack of a meritorious defense alone supported denial of the motion, and that the prejudice finding provided additional support.
The court therefore denied Respondents’ Rule 60(b)(1) motion to vacate the default judgment. It also denied their Rule 60(b)(6) motion because the reasons they offered were the type of reasons addressed by Rule 60(b)(1), rather than a separate basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Petitioner requested attorneys’ fees and costs for responding to the motion. The court declined to award them, explaining that Rule 60(b) authorizes such conditions when relief from a judgment is granted, but the court was denying—not granting—relief here.
Disposition
The motion to vacate the judgment was DENIED. The court also declined to award Petitioner attorneys’ fees and costs and directed the Clerk of Court to close the relevant docket entry.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.