Price et al v. City of Troy, New York et al
Filing
77
DECISION and ORDER. Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment 38 is DENIED in its entirety; Defendants' cross-motion to vacate the entry of default 40 is GRANTED in its entirety; and Defendants' motion for a more definite statement is DENIED without prejudice. The Defendants have fourteen days from the date of this decision to answer the complaint. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 1/15/2014. (lah)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------MICHAEL PRICE; 24 ALBANY HOLDING
LLC; and YOUTH EMPOWERMENT
SERVICES OF NEW YORK, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
-v-
1:12-CV-00815
CITY OF TROY, NEW YORK; LOU ROSAMILIA,
in his individual and official capacity as Mayor of
City of Troy; WILLIAM CHAMBERLAIN, in his
individual and official capacity as City of Troy
Deputy Mayor; BILL FRENCH, in his individual
and official capacity as City of Troy Code
Enforcement Officer; DON ALDANO, in his
individual and official capacity as City of Troy
Code Enforcement Employee; MARK MCGRATH,
in his individual and official capacity as City of
Troy Code Enforcement Officer; JOHN DOES #1;
ISAAC BERTOS, in his individual and official
capacity as City of Troy Police Officer;
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, in his individual and
official capacity as City of Troy Police Officer;
BILL WADE, in his individual and official capacity
as City of Troy Police Officer; SERGEANT
FRENCH, in his individual and official capacity as
City of Troy Police Officer; JOHN TEDESCO, in
his individual and official capacity as City of Troy
Police Chief; and JOHN DOES #2,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
OFFICE OF VINCENT U. UBA
Attorney for Plaintiffs
750 Broadway
Albany, NY 12207
VINCENT U. UBA, ESQ.
PATTISON, SAMPSON LAW FIRM
Attorneys for Defendants
22 First Street
P.O. Box 208
Troy, NY 12181
DONALD J. SHANLEY, ESQ.
CITY OF TROY, CORPORATION COUNSEL
Department of Law
1776 Sixth Avenue
Troy, NY 12180
IAN H. SILVERMAN, ESQ.
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
h
DECISION and ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
On May 16, 2012, plaintiffs initiated this action against defendants City of Troy, Mayor
Lou Rosamilia ("Rosamilia"), Deputy Mayor William Chamberlain ("Chamberlain"), City of
Troy Code Enforcement Officers Bill French ("French"), Don Aldano ("Aldano"), Mark
McGrath ("McGrath"), City of Troy Police Officers Isaac Bertos ("Bertos"), Christopher
Johnson ("Johnson"), Bill Wade ("Wade"), Sergeant French ("Sergeant French"), John
Tedesco ("Tedesco"), and several John Does.
Generally, plaintiffs allege a number of violations of state and federal law stemming
from actions taken by the defendants in connection with plaintiffs' ownership and occupation
of a building located at 275 Fourth Street in Troy, New York. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
as well as $1,077,000 in damages and attorney's fees.
On July 23, 2012, the City of Troy's Office of Corporation Counsel, through its attorney
Joshua Sabo ("Sabo"), filed an answer to plaintiffs' complaint on behalf of all defendants.
-2-
ECF No. 21. On November 15, 2012, plaintiffs moved for an entry of default1 against
defendants Rosamilia, Chamberlain, French, Aldano, McGrath, Johnson, Wade, Sergeant
French, and Tedesco (the "individual defendants"), arguing that the response filed by Sabo
was only on behalf of the City of Troy and not the individual defendants. ECF No. 29. After
reviewing the filing at issue, the Clerk of the Court entered default against the individual
defendants on November 28, 2012. ECF No. 34.
On January 11, 2013, plaintiffs moved for default judgment against the individual
defendants. ECF No. 38. On January 15, 2013, the individual defendants filed a crossmotion to vacate the entries of default against them.2 ECF No. 40. These motions have
been fully briefed and were considered on submit without oral argument.
II. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), a court "may set aside an entry of
default for good cause." Whether to vacate an entry of default is left to the discretion of the
district court. Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. Birnbaum, 722 F.3d 444, 454 (2d Cir. 2013). In
evaluating whether a party has shown good cause to vacate an entry of default, the following
factors should be considered: "(1) the willfulness of default, (2) the existence of any
meritorious defenses, and (3) prejudice to the non-defaulting party." Id. at 455.
Here, an answer was timely filed on behalf of all defendants. After plaintiffs moved for
an entry of default, the Clerk of the Court reviewed the document and subsequently
1
Pursuant to a January 1, 2013, text order, the entry of default against Bertos was vacated.
2
On May 22, 2013, the individual defendants also moved for a more definite statement pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). ECF No. 57. However, counsel for the parties agree that such a
motion is premature in light of the unresolved motion for default judgment and cross-motion to vacate the
entry of default. See Shanley Aff., ECF No. 61, ¶ 4; Uba Aff., ECF No. 59, ¶ 3. Accordingly, that motion will
be denied without prejudice to renew before Magistrate Judge Hummel.
-3-
construed it as an answer on behalf of only the City of Troy because of a drafting error in the
opening paragraph. Sabo Aff., ECF No. 40-1, ¶ 31. The remaining substance of the answer
clearly indicates that it was intended to be made on behalf of the individual defendants as
well. See Shanley Aff., ECF No. 40-2, ¶¶ 15-21. While courts have certainly considered
attorney carelessness to be inexcusable at times, a single error in sentence construction
does not rise to the level of inexcusable neglect. Indeed, there is every indication that this
entry of default was a surprising development and the attorney of record took diligent action
to correct the error. Id. ¶ 7.
The individual defendants have also demonstrated the existence of a number of
meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims, including a potential lack of standing, the need for
an analysis of qualified immunity, and a potential bar to the state claims under New York's
General Municipal Law. Id. ¶ 72. Given that the allegations against the individual
defendants relate to actions taken in their capacities as Police Officers and Code
Enforcement Officers for the City of Troy, qualified immunity may provide a complete defense
at trial. Def.'s Mem., ECF No. 40-13, 14.
Finally, there is no indication plaintiffs would suffer prejudice from vacatur. Plaintiffs
argue that prejudice would result because Michael Price is currently incarcerated. Pl.'s
Mem., ECF No. 58-6, 13. However, Mr. Price and the corporate plaintiffs are competently
represented by counsel. In any event, further review of the docket reveals that the individual
defendants have continued to engage in discovery and otherwise participate in this action.
See, e.g., ECF No. 72. Clearly, granting the individual defendants' motion to vacate the
entry of default against them would do little to change the course of the underlying
proceedings.
-4-
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the above findings, good cause exists to vacate the entry of default against
the individual defendants. Accordingly, defendants' cross-motion to vacate the entry of
default will be granted.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment (ECF No. 38) is DENIED in its entirety;
2. Defendants' cross-motion to vacate the entry of default (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED
in its entirety;
3. Defendants' motion for a more definite statement (ECF No. 57) is DENIED without
prejudice; and
3. Defendants have fourteen days from the date of this decision to answer the
complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15, 2014
Utica, New York.
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?