Stokes v. RBSB LLC
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-05253
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Stokes v. RBSB LLC, Judge Rochon granted RBSB’s motion to vacate a default judgment, allowing the case to proceed.
RBSB LLC and Michael Stokes. The default judgment against RBSB was vacated, and the case was set to proceed toward an initial pretrial conference.
What happened
In Stokes v. RBSB LLC, the defendant asked the court to cancel a $36,674.50 judgment entered after it failed to respond and to accept its proposed answer.
The court granted the motion to vacate the default judgment and canceled the certificate of default. It found that the defendant’s failure to respond was not intentional, that the defendant had a potentially valid defense, and that the plaintiff would not suffer significant harm from reopening the case.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered the defendant to file and serve its proposed answer by March 12, 2024. The court also scheduled an initial pretrial conference and required the parties to submit case-management and settlement materials.
The detailed version
- Stokes v. RBSB LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05253
- Rochon
- Mar. 5, 2024
Background
RBSB LLC, doing business as Rock Bar, asked the court to vacate a default judgment entered against it for $36,674.50 on February 15, 2023. RBSB also asked the court to treat its proposed answer and affirmative defenses as served on Michael Stokes. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Court’s Analysis
The court considered the parties’ arguments and granted RBSB’s motion to vacate the default judgment. It vacated the certificate of default. The court found that RBSB’s default was not willful, RBSB had presented a potentially meritorious defense, and Stokes would not suffer significant prejudice if the default were set aside. The court also relied on the strong preference for resolving cases on their merits.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court ordered RBSB to formally file and serve its proposed answer by March 12, 2024. It scheduled an initial pretrial conference for April 9, 2024, and ordered the parties to submit a proposed case-management plan and scheduling order and a joint letter about the case, possible motions, and settlement by March 29, 2024. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion listed at ECF No. 32.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.