Although Pettitt cites authority demonstrating that such a document would be necessary for collection of the debt under the statute of frauds ( see Docket No. With respect to the FDCPA claim, Pettitt argues that Chiari & Ilecki cannot present a meritorious defense because it did not have possession of a necessary document, one in which Pettitt allegedly acknowledged the debt and thereby extended the period for collection. "The test of such a defense is measured not by whether there is a likelihood that it will carry the day, but whether the evidence submitted, if proven at trial, would constitute a complete defense.'" Pecarsky v. This is a "low threshold," which can be satisfied by a denial of all material allegations. 1996) (quoting Anilina Fabrique de Colorants v. 'A defense is meritorious if it is good at law so as to give the factfinder some determination to make.'" Am. "To satisfy the criterion of a 'meritorious defense,' the defense need not be ultimately persuasive at this stage. Instead, Pettitt's argument in opposition to the motion focuses on whether Chiari & Ilecki can present a meritorious defense.Ĭhiari & Ilecki's request that Pettitt's opposition be stricken from the record (Docket No. Nor does Pettitt challenge Chiari & Ilecki's contention that no prejudice exists. Jan.29, 2002) see also American Alliance Ins. "Willfulness does not include mere carelessness or negligence." RLS Associates, LLC.
Pettitt does not contest the first factor, and Chiari & Ilecki's failure to answer the complaint appears to be due to carelessness or mistake in timely updating its mailing address with the New York Department of State.
ARTMATIC PRO 4 2006 TRIAL
"The court's discretion is narrow in light of the 'strong policies favoring the resolution of genuine disputes on their merits,' and the admonition that 'doubts are to be resolved in favor of trial on the merits.'" Id. In evaluating a motion to set aside an entry of default under Rule 55(c), "a court must evaluate: (1) the willfulness of the default (2) the prejudice to the adversary if the default is set aside and (3) whether the defendants present a meritorious defense." Holford USA Ltd., Inc. Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, "the court may set aside an entry of default for good cause." Fed. 11.) For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted.Ģ. 7.) On October 17, 2017, Chiari & Ilecki filed the present Motion to Set Aside Default. 2.) On August 21, 2017, the Clerk of Court entered a default against Chiari & Ilecki for failure to appear or otherwise defend in accordance with Fed. 1.) On July 13, 2017, a summons was issued to Defendant Chiari & Ilecki at 14 Lafayette Square, Ste. Plaintiff, Charles Pettitt, commenced this action on July 12, 2017, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act ("FDCPA") and New York State Law. SKRETNY United States District Judge DECISION AND ORDERġ.
0 kommentar(er)
