Momentum Funding, LLC v. Nova Funding Corporation
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-09392
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Momentum Funding v. Nova Funding, Judge Rochon denied defendants’ default-judgment motion, vacated default, and ordered a response by March 15.
Momentum Funding, LLC and defendants Nova Funding Corporation and Wellworth Lawsuit Funding LLC; the defendants must respond to the complaint by March 15, 2024.
What happened
Momentum Funding, LLC sued Nova Funding Corporation and Wellworth Lawsuit Funding LLC, doing business as Nova Legal Funding and Ally Lawsuit Loans. The opinion excerpt does not describe the underlying claims.
The court found that the defendants’ default was not willful, that they had a potentially meritorious defense, that Momentum would not suffer significant prejudice, and that the law favors resolving cases on their merits. The court also excused counsel’s late filing of the defendants’ opposition relative to counsel’s request to appear in the case.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied what the order calls the defendants’ motion for default judgment, vacated the certificate of default, and ordered the defendants to respond to the complaint by March 15, 2024. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 26 and 34.
The detailed version
- Momentum Funding, LLC v. Nova Funding Corporation · No. 1:23-cv-09392
- Rochon
- Mar. 1, 2024
Background
Momentum Funding, LLC is the plaintiff. The defendants are Nova Funding Corporation and Wellworth Lawsuit Funding LLC, doing business as Nova Legal Funding and Ally Lawsuit Loans. The excerpt identifies a notice of motion for default judgment filed by Momentum under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and Local Rule 55.2(b). It does not describe the underlying claims.
A default occurs when a party does not respond as required. A default judgment is a judgment entered because of that failure to respond. The excerpt refers to a certificate of default at ECF No. 20.
Court’s Analysis
The order states that, after considering the parties’ arguments at ECF Nos. 28, 34, and 38, the defendants’ default was not willful; the defendants had presented a potentially meritorious defense; Momentum would not suffer significant prejudice; and there is a strong preference for resolving cases on their merits. The court also excused counsel’s filing of the defendants’ opposition two days before seeking permission to appear in the case.
Ruling
The court denied the defendants’ motion for default judgment and vacated the certificate of default. It ordered the defendants to respond to the complaint by March 15, 2024. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 26 and 34. The excerpt is internally inconsistent because it begins with a plaintiff-filed notice of motion for default judgment but states that the defendants’ motion for default judgment was denied. It does not otherwise explain the nature of the defendants’ motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.