Moncion v. Flat Rate Movers Ltd

Background

The court had entered default judgment against Flat Rate Movers, Ltd. on December 26. The opinion’s background identifies that judgment as following events in late 2023, including the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the case, the court’s order requiring the plaintiff to explain that failure, and problems with the plaintiff’s motions seeking default.

The court had denied summary judgment on March 16, 2023. After that ruling, the plaintiff did not move the case forward for almost nine months. The court later issued an order requiring the plaintiff to show cause for failing to prosecute. After the plaintiff missed the response deadline, the case was terminated, but the court later reopened it and accepted the plaintiff’s explanation.

The plaintiff then filed a deficient motion for default before obtaining a clerk’s certificate of default. After obtaining the certificate, the plaintiff did not correct the deficient motion or file a new one until the court ordered it to do so. The plaintiff moved for default judgment on December 13, 2023.

Flat Rate Movers acknowledged receiving the motion for default but said it did not know the response deadline because it had not received the court’s order requiring a response by December 22. The court entered default judgment on December 26. The defendant’s attorney received that order on January 2, 2024, and the defendant moved to vacate the default on January 16, 2024.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a court deciding whether to vacate a default judgment considers three factors: whether the default was willful, whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, and whether setting aside the judgment would prejudice the party that obtained it. The opinion also states that the defendant’s separate argument under Rule 60(b)(4) lacked merit.

Court’s reasoning

The court concluded that Flat Rate Movers’s default was not willful. Because the defendant did not receive information about the default judgment until January 2, the court found that the defendant was, at most, negligent. The court added that even if the defendant had received the show-cause order, its conduct would still have been negligent rather than willful.

The court found that Flat Rate Movers had identified a meritorious defense because it had successfully opposed the plaintiff’s earlier summary-judgment motion. The court also found that vacating the default would not prejudice the plaintiff. It attributed most of the delay to the plaintiff’s attorney’s failure to move the case forward and mistakes concerning the default motion, rather than to the defendant’s brief delay in responding.

The court distinguished a decision cited by the plaintiff because the defendant in that case waited more than two months to appear or respond, while Flat Rate Movers did not have a comparable two-month delay. The court further noted the Second Circuit’s preference for resolving cases on their merits.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Flat Rate Movers, Ltd.’s motion to vacate the default judgment. The opinion does not state any further disposition of the underlying claims.