136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC v. Razinski
- 1:21-cv-11076
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In 136 Field Point Circle Holding Company v. Razinski, the court denied default judgment against Invar without prejudice; no judge is identified.
136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC’s request for default judgment against Invar International Holdings, Inc. was denied without prejudice; the existing default against Invar remained in place, while the claims involving Alexander Razinski and Tanya Razinski continued.
What happened
136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC asked the court to enter a default judgment against Invar International Holdings, Inc. for failing to prosecute the case and to hold a hearing to decide damages. The case also includes Alexander Razinski and Tanya Razinski, who had not defaulted.
The plaintiff said Invar’s liability arose from a guaranty of obligations owed by the Razinskis. A Clerk’s Certificate of Default had already been entered against Invar on January 31, 2024. Because the case involved multiple defendants and Invar’s liability could depend on whether the other defendants were ultimately liable, the court concluded that entering default judgment at that stage was not appropriate.
The court denied 136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC’s application for default judgment without prejudice to renewing it after the case against the non-defaulting defendants is resolved. The Clerk’s Certificate of Default remains in place, and the Clerk was directed to terminate the motion. The judge is not identified in the opinion text.
The detailed version
- 136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC v. Razinski · No. 1:21-cv-11076
- Mar. 4, 2024
Background
136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC moved for a default judgment against Invar International Holdings, Inc. The motion asserted that Invar had failed to prosecute the action and requested a later hearing to determine damages. The action also names Alexander Razinski and Tanya Razinski as defendants.
The plaintiff alleged that Invar’s claim was based on a May 17, 2012 Guaranty Agreement. Under that agreement, Invar guaranteed payment, performance, and satisfaction of obligations attributed to one or both Razinskis under specified transaction documents. The Clerk of Court had issued a Certificate of Default against Invar on January 31, 2024.
Court’s analysis
The court considered its procedure for default judgments in cases with multiple defendants. It reasoned that entering judgment against Invar before resolving the claims against the non-defaulting defendants was not appropriate because Invar’s liability could depend on whether those defendants were ultimately liable. The court cited decisions declining to decide default-judgment motions where one defendant’s liability may depend on the liability of other defendants.
The court distinguished between the existing default and a default judgment. The Certificate of Default prevents Invar from arguing the merits of the claims against it, but the court did not enter judgment or determine damages at this stage.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiff’s application for a default judgment without prejudice to renewal upon resolution of the case against the non-defaulting defendants. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion identified as ECF No. 72. The opinion text does not identify the judge by name.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.