Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v…
Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Petta Contracting Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-07268
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Trustees v. Petta Contracting Inc., Judge Torres treated Respondent’s opposition as a motion to set aside default and denied summary judgment without prejudice.
The order affects the Petitioners, whose summary-judgment motion was denied without prejudice, and Petta Contracting Inc., whose motion to set aside the entry of default will be addressed after Petitioners respond.
What happened
In Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Petta Contracting Inc., the Petitioners moved for summary judgment and later sought entry of default and default judgment. The Clerk entered a certificate of default, and Respondent later appeared.
Respondent filed a document described as an opposition to summary judgment. The Court treated that document as a motion to set aside the entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c). In light of that motion, the Court adjourned the scheduled default-judgment hearing indefinitely and denied Petitioners’ summary-judgment motion without prejudice to renewal.
Judge Analisa Torres also stated that Petitioners could renew their motion for default judgment if the default was not set aside, or renew their summary-judgment motion if the default was set aside. Petitioners were ordered to respond to Respondent’s motion by April 19, 2023, and the Clerk was directed to terminate the summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v… · No. 1:22-cv-07268
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 6, 2023
Background
On November 1, 2022, Petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment. On January 11, 2023, they moved for entry of default against Respondent, and the Clerk entered a certificate of default that same day. Petitioners later filed an order to show cause, a statement of damages, and a proposed default judgment. The Court then issued an order to show cause why default judgment should not be entered.
Respondent appeared on March 1, 2023. That day, Respondent filed a document styled as an opposition to Petitioners’ summary-judgment motion. The Court determined that, in substance, the filing was a motion to set aside the entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c). Relying on prior decisions, the Court treated the opposition as that motion.
Rulings
Because Respondent moved to set aside default, the Court adjourned the previously scheduled May 2, 2023 hearing on the order to show cause indefinitely. The Court denied Petitioners’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal. The Court stated that Petitioners may renew their motion for default judgment if the entry of default is not set aside, and may renew their motion for summary judgment if the default is set aside. Petitioners were ordered to respond to Respondent’s motion to set aside default by April 19, 2023. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 14.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.