Addison v. Reitman Blacktop, Inc.
272 F.R.D. 72
E.D.N.Y2010Background
- Plaintiffs Addison, Willett, and Vanderheydt sue Defendants Reitman Blacktop, Inc., Reitman Sealcoating Inc., and Robert Reitman for FLSA and NY Labor Law violations, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract arising from their employment.
- Defendants are alleged to operate as a single integrated enterprise; Reitman has ownership in Blacktop; the actions concern unpaid minimum wage, hours, breaks, and overtime.
- Initial Complaint was filed April 2, 2010; Vanderheydt was added as a plaintiff on September 22, 2010 via Amended Complaint.
- Corporate Defendants were served via the Secretary of State on June 21, 2010; personal service on Reitman is disputed; no timely responsive pleading to the Amended Complaint until after default actions.
- Plaintiffs moved to strike the Initial Answer and seek default judgment; Defendants moved to set aside default and filed a Second Answer on November 8, 2010.
- Court denies the Motion to Strike as moot, denies the Default Judgment, and grants the Motion to Set Aside the Default, with the Second Answer and Amended Complaint treated as operative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Initial Answer should be struck as untimely | Plaintiffs argue untimely and improper pro se filing by Reitman/Corporate Defendants. | Defendants contend sufficient service and conduct justify not striking; pro se status affords leeway. | Motion to Strike denied as moot. |
| Whether the default entered against defendants should be vacated | Default should stand due to willful non-response. | Defendants allege good cause to vacate given settlement discussions and prompt later response. | Default vacated; relief granted to set aside entry of default. |
| Whether the Second Answer and Amended Complaint become the operative pleadings | Default judgment would proceed on the Amended Complaint. | Second Answer timely filed after default, aligning with August 10, 2010 extension order. | Second Answer and Amended Complaint accepted as operative pleadings. |
| Whether there are meritorious defenses supporting vacatur | Possibility of meritorious defenses is weak; payment evidence insufficient to vacate. | Evidence of checks signed by plaintiffs showing full payment constitutes a meritorious defense. | Meritorious defenses found; supports vacatur. |
Key Cases Cited
- Enron Oil Corp. v. Dia-kuhara, 10 F.3d 90 (2d Cir.1993) (factors and standard for setting aside default; favors relief to adjudicate on merits)
- Pecarsky v. Galaxiworld.com, Ltd., 249 F.3d 167 (2d Cir.2001) (three-factor test for good cause to vacate default)
- S.E.C. v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732 (2d Cir.1998) (contextualizes willfulness and default standards)
- Dow Chem. Pacific Ltd. v. Rascator Maritime S.A., 782 F.2d 329 (2d Cir.1986) (exemplifies consideration of obstruction and timely response in default rulings)