Loadholt v. OrthoFeet, Inc.
- Carter
- 1:22-cv-03977
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Loadholt v. OrthoFest, Judge Carter ordered steps toward default judgment after the defendant again failed to respond.
Christopher Loadholt was directed to seek a certificate of default and file a motion for default judgment. OrthoFest, Inc., which had not answered the complaint, was the defendant affected by those procedural steps.
What happened
In Loadholt v. OrthoFest, Inc., Christopher Loadholt sued OrthoFest, Inc., which had not answered or otherwise responded to the complaint.
At a July 11, 2023 conference, the court found good cause to set aside the defendant’s entry of default and extended the deadline to answer to July 14. The defendant missed that deadline and still had not answered by July 18.
The court directed Loadholt to seek a certificate of default by July 25 and file a motion for default judgment by August 15. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. issued the order; the court did not decide the requested default judgment in this order.
The detailed version
- Loadholt v. OrthoFeet, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03977
- Carter
- July 18, 2023
Background
The court held a status conference on July 11, 2023, to address the defendant’s failure to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. After hearing argument, the court applied the standards from Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara and ruled that there was “good cause” to set aside the defendant’s entry of default. The court extended the deadline for the defendant to answer to July 14, 2023.
Failure to Answer
The defendant missed the extended deadline and, as of the order’s date, had not filed an answer to the complaint.
Court’s Action
The court directed Christopher Loadholt to seek a certificate of default by July 25, 2023, and to file a motion for default judgment by August 15, 2023. This order directed those next steps; it did not itself grant a default judgment. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. signed the order on July 18, 2023.
Name Inconsistency
The caption identifies the defendant as “OrthoFest, Inc.” The opinion text also refers to the defendant as “OrthoFeet, Inc.” and “Othofest.”
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.