Environmental Solutions Assn. 1 v. Professional Laboratories, Inc.
SUMMARY ORDER - That Professional Laboratories' request to file a surreply(Dkt. No. 19) is GRANTED and the attached surreply is deemed filed immediately. That Environmental Solutions' motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 10) is DENIED. T hat Professional Laboratories' motion to set aside the Clerk's entry of default and to extend the time to file an answer (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED. That Professional Laboratories shall file its proposed Answer within seven (7) days of the d ate of this Summary Order. Answer due date updated for Professional Laboratories, Inc. answer due 11/16/2012. That the parties shall contact Magistrate Judge Peebles in order to schedule further proceedings in accordance with this Summary Order. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 11/9/2012. (jel, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ASSN. 1 d/b/a Environmental
Plaintiff Environmental Solutions Assn. 1, doing business as
Environmental Solutions Association, commenced this action against
defendant Professional Laboratories, Inc., alleging six causes of action,
including copyright infringement, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
(See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Although service of the Complaint was made on
June 20, 2012, (see Dkt. No. 6), Professional Laboratories failed to
interpose an Answer. As such, Environmental Solutions filed a request for
a Clerk’s entry of default, which was entered on July 19, 2012. (See Dkt.
Nos. 8, 9.) Now pending are Environmental Solutions’ motion for default
judgment, and Professional Laboratories’ cross motion to, inter alia, set
aside the default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c)1. (See Dkt.
Nos. 10,15.) For the reasons that follow, Environmental Solutions’ motion
is denied and Professional Laboratories’ cross motion is granted.
Willfulness does not generally include conduct that is careless or
negligent. Am. Alliance Ins. Co. v. Eagle Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 57, 61 (2d Cir.
1996). Although Environmental Solutions argues otherwise, (see Dkt. No.
16 at 2-8), the court is unpersuaded that Professional Laboratories’
improvident reliance on its former counsel was anything more than
careless or negligent, (see Dkt. No. 15, Attach. 1 ¶¶ 21-37). Indeed, there
is no indication that Professional Laboratories acted in bad faith in failing to
timely defend. Furthermore, setting aside the entry of default will not
prejudice Environmental Solutions. Prejudice results when delay causes
“the loss of evidence, create[s] increased difficulties of discovery, or
provide[s] greater opportunity for fraud and collusion.” Davis v. Musler, 713
The standard of review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) is well
established and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the
standard, the court refers the parties to its decision in Gates v. Wilkinson,
No. 1:03-CV-763, 2005 WL 3115826, at *1-2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2005).
To the extent that Environmental Solutions seeks application of a more
stringent standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), (see Dkt. No. 16 at 2), the
court—largely for the reasons discussed in Professional Laboratories’
surreply, which is now accepted for filing, (see Dkt. No. 19, Attach. 1 at 12)—disagrees that the heightened standard is applicable at this juncture.
F.2d 907, 916 (2d Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Here, discovery has not even commenced, and there is no
indication that evidence has been lost.
Finally, Professional Laboratories not only attached its Answer to its
motion papers, but in so doing, also presented evidence of meritorious
defenses, including threshold challenges to the court’s jurisdiction. (See
Dkt. No. 15, Attach. 20.) “To satisfy the criterion of a meritorious defense,
the defense need not be ultimately persuasive at this stage.” Niepoth v.
Montgomery Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Office, 177 F.R.D. 111, 113 (N.D.N.Y.
1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A defense is
meritorious if it is good at law so as to give the fact finder some
determination to make.” Id. (internal quotation marks citations omitted).
Here, the defenses raised by Professional Laboratories are sufficient to set
aside the entry of default. (See Dkt. No. 15, Attach. 20 ¶¶ 93-115.)
In sum, because Professional Laboratories has demonstrated that its
default was not willful, Environmental Solutions will suffer no prejudice, and
it may have a meritorious defense, the entry of default is vacated and the
time in which to file an Answer is extended.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED that Professional Laboratories’ request to file a surreply
(Dkt. No. 19) is GRANTED and the attached surreply is deemed filed
immediately; and it is further
ORDERED that Environmental Solutions’ motion for default judgment
(Dkt. No. 10) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Professional Laboratories’ motion to set aside the
Clerk’s entry of default and to extend the time to file an Answer (Dkt. No.
15) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Professional Laboratories shall file its proposed
Answer within seven (7) days of the date of this Summary Order; and it is
ORDERED that the parties shall contact Magistrate Judge Peebles in
order to schedule further proceedings in accordance with this Summary
Order; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Summary Order to
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 9, 2012
Albany, New York
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?