Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 21, 2023

Loadholt v. OrthoFeet, Inc.

Judge
Carter
Docket
1:22-cv-03977
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Loadholt v. OrthoFeet, Judge Carter kept default-judgment deadlines in place after OrthoFeet filed a late answer.

Who this affects

Christopher Loadholt and OrthoFeet, Inc.; the order sets deadlines for a possible default-judgment motion and opposition.

What happened

In Loadholt v. OrthoFeet, OrthoFeet filed an answer after the deadline, responding to the amended complaint and following an earlier order directing Christopher Loadholt to move for default judgment.

The court kept the earlier deadlines in effect. Loadholt had to seek a certificate of default by July 25, 2023, and file a motion for default judgment by August 15, 2023. OrthoFeet could oppose that motion in writing by August 29, 2023.

The order did not decide whether default judgment should be entered or resolve the underlying claims. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. stated that OrthoFeet’s late answer could be treated as a default issue and directed the parties to follow the stated schedule.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Loadholt v. OrthoFeet, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03977
Judge
Carter
Date
July 21, 2023

Background

The court had issued a July 18, 2023 order directing Plaintiff Christopher Loadholt to move for default judgment. OrthoFeet, Inc. then filed a late answer to the amended complaint. The court cited precedent stating that a late answer may be treated as a default issue and is analogous to a request to set aside a default.

Deadlines and Possible Opposition

The court stated that the deadlines in its July 18 order remained in effect. If Loadholt sought default judgment, he had to request a certificate of default by July 25, 2023, and file the default-judgment motion by August 15, 2023. OrthoFeet could oppose the motion in writing by August 29, 2023, addressing the factors identified in Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara.

Disposition

The order maintained the existing schedule. It did not rule on whether a certificate of default should issue, whether default judgment should be entered, or the merits of the amended complaint. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. entered the order on July 21, 2023.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.