Evans v. New York City Health And Hospitals Corporation

Background

Pauline Evans, representing herself, sued New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Lincoln. The opinion identifies Evans as a former Head Nurse at Lincoln Hospital who was terminated on November |, 2021 for failing to comply with the hospital’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for employees.

Evans alleged that the vaccination policy violated her right to refuse unwanted and medically unnecessary medical care, her due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

The court initially dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute after Evans did not respond to an order concerning her failure to serve the defendants. The court later reopened the case after Evans moved to reopen it and filed proof of service. Evans then filed proof of service as to both defendants. The defendants did not answer or otherwise respond by their deadline, and the Clerk entered certificates of default.

Motion and Recommendation

Evans moved for default judgment. After an attorney appeared for the defendants, the defendants opposed the motion. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo recommended denying it. Evans objected to that recommendation.

Because the Clerk had entered default but no default judgment had yet been entered, the court applied the “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c). The court considered whether the default was willful, whether setting aside the default would prejudice Evans, and whether the defendants had a meritorious defense. A meritorious defense at this stage need not ultimately prevail; it must have enough support to show that the defense is potentially valid.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Evans had not shown that the defendants’ failure to respond was deliberate or egregious. The defendants explained that the failure resulted from an internal office miscommunication. The court stated that law-office failures, even when involving negligence or passivity, do not necessarily amount to willful default.

The court also found that Evans had identified no specific prejudice beyond a general claim of “irreparable and undue prejudice.” Because the case was relatively recent and still in its early stages, the court found no apparent prejudice from allowing the defendants to participate.

Finally, the court found that the defendants had presented significant evidence of potentially meritorious defenses. The defendants indicated that they intended to move to dismiss Evans’s claims and argued that her claims concerning the vaccination policy were foreclosed by Jacobson v. Massachusetts and later decisions concerning COVID-19 vaccination mandates. Regarding the Supremacy Clause claim, the defendants cited decisions supporting their position.

The court also rejected Evans’s accusations of judicial bias and stated that any implied request for recusal of Judge Figueredo or the district court was meritless and denied.

Disposition

Judge Engelmayer accepted and adopted Judge Figueredo’s November 28, 2022 Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied Evans’s motion for default judgment. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, vacate the certificates of default at dockets 19 and 23, and mail Evans a copy of the decision. The case remained under Judge Figueredo’s pretrial supervision. The opinion decided the default-judgment request; it did not decide the ultimate merits of Evans’s claims concerning the vaccination policy.