Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 1, 2024

Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:23-cv-09173
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureCivil Rights
In one sentence

In Fecteau v. City of Mount Vernon, Judge Karas denied Fecteau’s default-judgment motion as moot after he filed an amended complaint.

Who this affects

Matthew J. Fecteau’s pending request for a default judgment was denied as moot; the named defendants were not held liable or ordered to pay damages in this ruling.

What happened

In Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon, Matthew J. Fecteau asked the court to enter a default judgment against the City, two city departments, and three individual defendants. He sought $850,000 plus interest and costs based on alleged constitutional-rights violations.

Fecteau filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2024, while his default-judgment motion was pending. The court explained that the amended complaint replaced the earlier complaint, so the Clerk’s earlier entry of default no longer had legal effect and the motion was no longer a live request.

Judge Kenneth Karas denied the motion as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it. The court did not decide whether Fecteau’s underlying claims were valid or whether he was entitled to damages.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon · No. 7:23-cv-09173
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
May 1, 2024

Background

Matthew J. Fecteau moved under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a default judgment against the City of Mount Vernon, the Mount Vernon Department of Buildings, the Mount Vernon Police Department, Sergeant Mario Stewart, Detective Montika Jones, and Ms. Charlene Humphreys. His motion stated that the defendants had been served but had not answered or otherwise defended the action. It sought $850,000, 8% post-judgment interest, costs, and disbursements. The motion identified claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Reason for the ruling

On April 30, 2024, Fecteau filed an amended complaint. The court held that the amended complaint replaced the earlier complaint. As a result, the Clerk of Court’s earlier entry of default was no longer legally effective, and the pending motion for default judgment was no longer a live dispute. The court did not reach the merits of Fecteau’s alleged constitutional violations, the defendants’ liability, or his damages request.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth Karas denied Fecteau’s motion for default judgment as moot. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion, identified as Dkt. No. 27.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.