Melo-Cordero v. Shaddai Transport LLC
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:21-cv-04837
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Melo-Cordero v. Shaddai Transport, Judge Kaplan vacated Robinson’s default judgment and left his proposed filing to Magistrate Judge Aaron.
Windell Robinson’s default judgment was vacated, allowing him to respond to the amended complaint on a date to be set by Magistrate Judge Aaron. The order also affected the plaintiff, whose judgment against Robinson was canceled; the order did not resolve the separate request to file a third-party complaint.
What happened
Melo-Cordero v. Shaddai Transport LLC concerns a motor vehicle accident involving Windell Robinson, who was driving a truck during his employment. Robinson asked the court to cancel the default judgment entered against him and allow him to respond to the amended complaint and file a third-party complaint. The plaintiff did not oppose the request, and Amazon Logistics, Inc. took no position on it.
The court considered whether Robinson’s failure to respond was intentional, whether he had a potentially valid defense, and whether canceling the judgment would unfairly harm the plaintiff. The court found that Robinson’s default did not appear intentional because he had contacted his employer for a defense shortly after receiving the lawsuit papers. The court also found that he met the relatively easy standard for showing a potentially valid defense.
The court vacated the default judgment against Robinson. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan left the separate, non-dispositive issue of Robinson’s proposed answer and third-party complaint to Magistrate Judge Aaron, who will set the date for Robinson’s response after deciding that remaining issue.
The detailed version
- Melo-Cordero v. Shaddai Transport LLC · No. 1:21-cv-04837
- Lewis Kaplan
- May 11, 2023
Background
Defendant Windell Robinson moved to vacate, meaning cancel, the default judgment entered against him at ECF No. 79. He also sought permission to file an answer and a third-party complaint. This order addressed only the request to vacate the default judgment. The court left the separate, non-dispositive issue concerning the proposed answer and third-party complaint to Magistrate Judge Aaron.
The case concerns a motor vehicle accident that occurred while Robinson was driving a truck during his employment. The papers indicated that, shortly after Robinson was served with the summons and amended complaint in August 2022, he sent a letter asking his employer to defend him. The default judgment was entered afterward. No party opposed the request to vacate the judgment. Amazon Logistics, Inc. expressly took no position on that part of Robinson’s motion.
Court’s analysis
The court applied three considerations for vacating a default judgment: whether the default was intentional, whether the defendant has a potentially valid defense, and whether vacating the judgment would unfairly harm the party who obtained it.
The court concluded that Robinson’s default did not appear to have been intentional, given his prompt effort to obtain a defense from his employer. It also concluded that Robinson met the applicable standard for showing a potentially valid defense, which the court described as not demanding. Although the plaintiff might potentially be harmed by vacating the judgment, the plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion weakened that concern. The court determined that these considerations outweighed any prejudice to the plaintiff.
Disposition
The court vacated the default judgment entered against Robinson. Robinson must respond to the amended complaint on a date that Magistrate Judge Aaron will set after deciding the remaining aspect of Robinson’s motion. The order did not itself decide whether Robinson may file the proposed answer and third-party complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.