Johnson v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC

Background

Joseph Johnson commenced the case on February 10, 2023. The defendant did not appear through counsel by the original response deadline. On June 20, 2023, Judge John G. Koeltl extended the defendant’s time to answer or otherwise respond to July 5, 2023, and stated that Johnson could seek an order requiring the defendant to explain its failure to respond before moving for default judgment if the defendant missed that deadline.

The defendant later requested another extension. Its counsel stated that the defendant did not receive notice of the action until July 10, 2023, after the response deadline had expired. Counsel also stated that Johnson had served the complaint on CT Corporation on March 28, 2023, but CT Corporation rejected the service because it was not the registered agent for the entity named as defendant. On July 26, 2023, the court extended the defendant’s time to answer, move, or otherwise respond until August 29, 2023.

Johnson had filed a motion for default judgment, which the court denied without prejudice on July 28, 2023. The court explained that default judgment was not warranted at that time because defense counsel had appeared and the court had granted the response extension.

Johnson’s Reconsideration Motion

On August 16, 2023, Johnson moved for reconsideration of the order granting the extension. He argued that the defendant should not have received additional time and asserted that the defendant had provided CT Corporation with a fictitious address.

A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier ruling. The court explained that this remedy is available only under a strict standard, such as an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Reconsideration is not a vehicle for repeating old arguments or presenting new theories that could have been raised earlier.

Court’s Analysis and Disposition

The court concluded that Johnson’s arguments did not provide a reason to change the earlier order. It stated that district courts have broad discretion to manage their caseloads and dockets. It also found that the defendant had shown good cause for the extension: according to the defendant, Johnson served an entity that was not its registered agent, Johnson was notified of the service problem by a March 9, 2023 letter, and the defendant did not receive notice of the action until July 10, 2023.

The court further explained that default judgments are disfavored and that courts in the Second Circuit prefer to resolve disputes on their merits. The court therefore left the prior order granting the defendant additional time unchanged. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 20. The order addressed the reconsideration request and the timing of the defendant’s response; it did not decide the underlying claims in Johnson’s complaint.