Meehan v. Snow, Nos. 1352
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before KAUFMAN, OAKES and NEWMAN; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 652 F.2d 274 |
| Parties | John F. MEEHAN and Robert W. Fink a/k/a Meehan & Fink, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John SNOW and Judy Snow, Defendants-Appellants. ockets 77-7177, 77-7456, 80-7887. |
| Docket Number | Nos. 1352,D,1457,1458 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 1981 |
Page 274
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
John SNOW and Judy Snow, Defendants-Appellants.
Second Circuit.
Decided June 29, 1981.
Page 275
Vogel & Rosenberg, New York City, submitted a brief for defendants-appellants.
McCann, Rider, Drake, Weiner, Sommers & Loeb, Newburgh, N.Y., submitted a brief for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before KAUFMAN, OAKES and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John and Judy Snow appeal from judgments entered in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, the combined effect of which obliges them to pay their former attorneys $16,316.51 plus interest. The judgments were entered by default because the appellants were ten days late in serving their amended answer to their former attorney's amended complaint. Though we share the District Court's concern for the expeditious conduct of litigation, we reverse because the extreme sanction of default was imposed under an incorrect standard.
Plaintiffs-appellees John F. Meehan and Robert W. Fink brought this action in 1975 against defendants-appellants, their former clients, to collect an attorney's fee of approximately $14,000. The appellants removed the suit to federal court on diversity grounds, answered, and counterclaimed for $1.5 million in damages allegedly caused by the appellees' negligence while representing them. Nearly a year later, after successfully moving to amend the complaint, the appellees served an amended complaint by mailing it on September 15, 1976. The amended complaint added two causes of action for defamation for which the appellees sought $1.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Though an original answer is due twenty days after service of an original complaint, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a), the time limit for an amended answer to an amended complaint is ten days, Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), which was extended to thirteen days in this case because the amended complaint was served by mail, Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e). The appellants were therefore required to serve their amended answer by September 28, 1976. They concededly missed this deadline by ten days, mailing their amended answer on October 8, 1976. 1 The appellees' counsel received the amended answer on October 15. Despite having received the amended answer, the appellees filed a motion for default judgment on October 18. 2 After a hearing, the District Court (Henry F. Werker, Judge) granted the motion, ordered entry of a default judgment, and afforded the appellants thirty days to move to set aside the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). The 60(b) motion was filed, heard, and denied by Judge Werker. The default
Page 276
judgment awarded the appellees the $14,316 in damages they had sought for unpaid attorney's fees, plus interest, and ordered a hearing to determine damages on the causes of action for defamation. 3 A Magistrate recommended damages totaling $100,000, but Judge Lowe, to whom the case had been reassigned, reduced this sum to $2,000, plus interest. 494 F.Supp. 690. These appeals have been taken from the default judgment, the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, and the entry of the final judgment on the defamation claims.The procedural steps contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure following a defendant's failure to plead or defend as required by the Rules begin with the entry of a default by the clerk upon a plaintiff's request. Rule 55(a). Then, pursuant to Rule 55(c), the defendant has an opportunity to seek to have the default set aside. If that motion is not made or is unsuccessful, and if no hearing is needed to ascertain damages, judgment by default may be entered by the court or, if the defendant has not appeared, by the clerk. Rule 55(b). Finally, Rule 55(c) authorizes a motion to set aside a default judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). See generally 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil §§ 2681-2700 (1973).
In this case, the initial step of securing the entry of a default was omitted. Though Judge Werker's memorandum decision granting the default judgment recites that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mathon v. Marine Midland Bank, NA, No. CV 94-2265 (ADS).
...263 (1991). A meritorious defense is established by Rule 55 standards by setting forth denials and defenses in an answer. Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274, 277 (2d Cir. 1981). For reasons discussed in detail below, the Court finds that the Shapiro defendants present a meritorious defense to the......
-
In re Conservatorship Turner, No. M2013-01665-COA-R3-CV
...as to damages.'" Lothschuetz, 898 F.2d at 1205 (quoting Meehan v. Snow, 494 F.Supp. 690, 698 (S.D. NY.1980), rev'd on other grounds, 652 F.2d 274 (2d Cir. 1981)). As discussed in Lawrence A. Pivnick, Tennessee Circuit Court Practice, § 27.2 (2012):Judgment by default (previously called judg......
-
Boehner v. Heise, No. 03 Civ. 5453(THK)
...to substantial damages, as substantial compensatory damages must be founded upon a finding of substantial injury), rev'd on other grounds, 652 F.2d 274 (2d Cir.1981); see also Wood v. Lee, 41 A.D.2d 730, 341 N.Y.S.2d 738 (1st Dep't 1973) (noting that it is assumed that while slander does ca......
-
Wachs v. Winter, No. 81 C 2640.
...denied, 350 U.S. 846, 76 S.Ct. 80, 100 L.Ed. 754 (1955); Meehan v. Snow, 494 F.Supp. 690, 696 (S.D.N.Y.1980), rev'd on other grounds, 652 F.2d 274 (2d Cir.1981). The purpose in awarding punitive damages is not only to deter the libelor so that he will not repeat his actions, see Reynolds v.......
-
Mathon v. Marine Midland Bank, NA, No. CV 94-2265 (ADS).
...263 (1991). A meritorious defense is established by Rule 55 standards by setting forth denials and defenses in an answer. Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274, 277 (2d Cir. 1981). For reasons discussed in detail below, the Court finds that the Shapiro defendants present a meritorious defense to the......
-
In re Conservatorship Turner, No. M2013-01665-COA-R3-CV
...as to damages.'" Lothschuetz, 898 F.2d at 1205 (quoting Meehan v. Snow, 494 F.Supp. 690, 698 (S.D. NY.1980), rev'd on other grounds, 652 F.2d 274 (2d Cir. 1981)). As discussed in Lawrence A. Pivnick, Tennessee Circuit Court Practice, § 27.2 (2012):Judgment by default (previously called judg......
-
Boehner v. Heise, No. 03 Civ. 5453(THK)
...to substantial damages, as substantial compensatory damages must be founded upon a finding of substantial injury), rev'd on other grounds, 652 F.2d 274 (2d Cir.1981); see also Wood v. Lee, 41 A.D.2d 730, 341 N.Y.S.2d 738 (1st Dep't 1973) (noting that it is assumed that while slander does ca......
-
Wachs v. Winter, No. 81 C 2640.
...denied, 350 U.S. 846, 76 S.Ct. 80, 100 L.Ed. 754 (1955); Meehan v. Snow, 494 F.Supp. 690, 696 (S.D.N.Y.1980), rev'd on other grounds, 652 F.2d 274 (2d Cir.1981). The purpose in awarding punitive damages is not only to deter the libelor so that he will not repeat his actions, see Reynolds v.......