In re Suprema Specialties, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 June 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04 Civ. 7722(GEL).,04 Civ. 7722(GEL).
• Citation: 330 B.R. 40
• Parties: In re SUPREMA SPECIALTIES, INC., et al., Debtors. Jack G. Gaglio and Mathilda McBride, Appellants, v. Kenneth P. Silverman, Esq., Chapter 7 Trustee of Suprema Specialties, Inc., et al., Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York

330 B.R. 40

In re SUPREMA SPECIALTIES, INC., et al., Debtors Jack G. Gaglio and Mathilda McBride, Appellants, v. Kenneth P. Silverman, Esq., Chapter 7 Trustee of Suprema Specialties, Inc., et al., Appellee.

No. 04 Civ. 7722(GEL).

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York.

June 7, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

David R. Scheidemantle, Sanjay Thapar, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, New York, for appellants Jack G. Gaglio and Mathilda McBride.

Jay S. Hellman, Silverman Perlstein & Acampora LLP, Jericho, New York, for appellee Kenneth Silverman, Trustee of Suprema Specialties, Inc., and related entities.

OPINION AND ORDER

LYNCH, District Judge.

Jack G. Gaglio and Mathilda McBride, appellants in these consolidated bankruptcy appeals, challenge the entry of default judgments by the Bankruptcy Court, and that Court's subsequent refusal to vacate those judgments. The decision to enter default judgments will be affirmed, but the judgments will be vacated, and the matters remanded for further proceedings with respect to the amount of damages.

BACKGROUND

In February 2002, Suprema Specialties, Inc., and three related entities (collectively, "Suprema" or the "Debtors") filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and shortly thereafter the proceedings were converted into Chapter 7 liquidation proceedings. The Bankruptcy Court appointed Kenneth Silverman, the appellee here, as Trustee for the bankrupt estates.

On or about January 21, 2004, the Trustee filed a number of complaints against Gaglio, McBride, and various entities affiliated with them, commencing adversary proceedings.¹ It is uncontested that appellants were properly served with the complaints, and that answers were due by February 20, 2004 (or, in one of the matters, February 23, 2004). Additionally, the summonses noted that the Bankruptcy Court would hold a conference on March 17, 2004.² Neither Gaglio nor McBride either answered or requested an extension of time to answer (either from the Trustee or the Court) by the due date. Nor did appellants (or anyone acting on their behalf) appear at the scheduled March 17 conference.

At that conference, the Trustee noted that appellants were in default, and United States Bankruptcy Judge Cornelius Blackshear directed the Trustee to serve them with a proposed Order of Default and Judgment. On April 2, 2004, the Trustee served appellants with a "Notice of Settlement of Order and Default Judgment." The notice clearly stated that the default judgment would be presented to Judge Blackshear on April 28, 2004, at 10:00 a.m., although it did not specifically require appellants to appear in court at that time.

On April 27, 2004, appellants, through counsel, filed an answer to the Trustee's complaint. The Trustee received actual notice of the filing by e-mail late that day.³ The Trustee immediately responded that the answer was late and that Judge Blackshear had directed the Trustee to settle an order of default judgment on notice against appellants. The e-mail response explicitly stated that "That order [of default judgment] will be signed tomorrow. Accordingly, your answers are hereby rejected." (A.418.)

Appellants somewhat disingenuously insist that they were never notified that a hearing would be held on April 28 regarding the default. (Appellants' Br. 5-6; A. 387.) The notice they received, however, clearly indicated that the order would be "presented" to the judge for signature at a particular time, and counsel for the Trustee specifically reiterated in his e-mail that the order would be signed the next day. Nevertheless, appellants failed to appear before Judge Blackshear on April 28. At some time on that day they did file an objection to the settlement of the order. The Trustee asserts, and appellants do not dispute, that their opposition was not filed until some time after the conference was held. (A.468.) Conversely, appellants point out that their objection was filed on April 28, and that the order granting the default judgment, although signed on April 28, was not entered on the docket until April 29, after the objection had been filed. (A.678-79.)

Default was duly entered, and on May 10, 2004, appellants moved to vacate the default judgment. After full briefing, and oral argument on June 10, 2004, Judge Blackshear denied the motion on June 25, 2004. This appeal followed. Appellants challenge both the original entry of the default judgment and the denial of their motion to vacate the judgment.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

A decision to grant a default judgment is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Pecarsky v. Galaxiworld.com Ltd., 249 F.3d 167, 171 (2d Cir.2001). Similarly, motions to vacate a default judgment "are addressed to the broad equitable discretion of the court where the default was taken," In re Chalasani, 92 F.3d 1300, 1307 (2d Cir.1996) and therefore "the denial of a motion for relief from a default judgment is reviewed only for abuse of discretion." Am. Alliance Ins. Co. v. Eagle Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 57, 62 (2d Cir.1996). But this seemingly tolerant standard of review is capable of different emphases, illustrated by the two just-cited cases, decided by the Second Circuit within a week of each other in 1996. In Chalasani, affirming a default judgment, the Court emphasized that "because [the trial] court is in the best position to assess the credibility and motives of the moving party, we will not disturb its decision granting or denying relief unless the decision was clearly wrong." 92 F.3d at 1307. In American Alliance, however, reversing such a judgment, the Court noted that in light of "the strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits," a reviewing court may reverse "`even where the abuse of discretion is not glaring.'" 92 F.3d at 62, quoting Brien v. Kullman Indus., Inc., 71 F.3d 1073, 1077 (2d Cir.1995).

The Second Circuit's apparent ambivalence about the standard of review is understandable, in light of "the tension that exists between the push on a trial court to dispose of cases that, in disregard of the rules, are not processed expeditiously, which cases delay and clog its calendar, on the one hand; and the strong pull on the same trial judge to do justice in the individual case, on the other hand." Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90, 96 (2d Cir.1993). Ultimately, however, the Second Circuit has given clear instructions regarding where to strike the balance between these competing policies: "[B]ecause defaults are generally disfavored and are reserved for rare occasions, when doubt exists as to whether a default should be granted or vacated, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the defaulting party." Id. The Court of Appeals has also pointed out "the importance of an explanation by the district court for its denial of a motion to vacate" in permitting "intelligent appellate review," id., and therefore requires that "a trial court should provide specific reasons for a denial of a motion to set aside a default." Id. at 97.

This Court "shares the general judicial distaste for disposing of cases by defaults ... rather than on the merits." In re Litas Int'l, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 620(GEL), 2004 WL 1488114, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2004). In order to avoid precisely the sort of ambiguity about a party's non-appearance that occurred here, this Court's individual practices require a party seeking a default judgment to proceed by order to show cause, which identifies a particular time and place for the defaulting party to appear and take advantage of one last chance to contest the case. Individual Practice Rules, Attachment A (Default Judgment Procedure). At that hearing, the Court assures itself that the defaulting party has not appeared, filed papers, or contacted the party seeking the default before entering judgment. Absent clear prejudice to the party seeking the default, judgment is not entered if there is any reason to believe that the defaulting party intends to appear and defend the case on the merits.

This practice is by no means mandatory, and represents merely an exercise by this Court of its discretion to manage its docket. The Court is respectful not only of the different preferences of other courts in the exercise of their discretion, but also and especially of the particular case-load pressures in the Bankruptcy Court, where, as the proceedings in this very case illustrate, each of the many bankruptcy cases may involve multiple adversary actions among numerous parties. Accordingly, the Court reviews the decisions below on an abuse of discretion standard, with sensitivity to the perceptions of the judge on the scene, but also with a recognition that defaults are disfavored.

II. Appellants' Arguments

Appellants' attack the default judgment below from two angles. First, they assert a number of essentially technical procedural arguments that the entry of a default judgment was improper as a matter of law. Second, they frontally attack the decision of the bankruptcy court to refuse to vacate the judgment as an abuse of discretion.

A. Procedural Claims

Without any apparent sense of irony, appellants seek to relieve themselves of the consequences of their disregard for the letter of procedural rules by insisting on the punctilio of exact compliance with what they contend are the rules governing defaults, claiming that "overwhelming legal authority mandat [es]" vacation of the default judgments. (Appellants' Br. 8.) As might be expected from parties whose regard for the rules applicable to them is limited, their reading of the "legal authority" they cite is somewhat selective.

First, appellants argue that on a literal reading of Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a), a default may only be entered against a party that "has failed to plead or otherwise defend" itself, and that the default judgment here was therefore straightforwardly in error, since they answered the complaint on April 27, and the default was not entered until April 29 (Appellants' Br. 10-11).

The...