EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE CORPORATION v. JUDD ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Full title: EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. JUDD ASSOCIATES, LTD…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Mar 31, 2005

No. 01 Civ. 9019 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2005)

Opinion

No. 01 Civ. 9019 (TPG).

March 31, 2005

OPINION

THOMAS GRIESA, Senior District Judge

Plaintiff Employers Reinsurance Corporation ("ERC") has moved to obtain a default judgment against all defendants, except C.S.I.R. Enterprises of Connecticut and R.D. Management Corporation, claiming that they failed to comply with the Court's December 1, 2003 order directing the corporate defendants to retain counsel and for such counsel to file a Notice of Appearance by January 15, 2004. In the alternative, ERC also moves to amend its complaint a second time to include information regarding the defense of an underlying action.

The motion for default judgment is denied. The alternative motion to amend the complaint is granted.

Facts

On or about June 2, 2003, original counsel for defendants, moved to be permitted to withdraw. This Court granted that motion on December 1, 2003, directing that the corporate defendants retain counsel and that such counsel file a notice of appearance by January 15, 2004.

On or about January 15, 2004, Malcolm Taub, Esq. wrote to this Court stating that he was representing defendants in various other matters and "became aware of your Honor's Order only yesterday." In this same letter, Taub requested a "one week extension of the time to file a Notice of Appearance." The request was granted.

Taub alleges that he filed a notice of appearance with the Court on January 22, 2004, the same date he sent copies of the Notice with a corresponding cover letter to Edward S. Benson, counsel for plaintiff. This letter was copied to Jonathan Lupkin, attorney for R.D. Management Corp. However, it appears that this notice was not in fact filed by the court at that time.

Taub now states that in light of this filing error, he is "refiling" the notice of appearance. Both the notice of appearance and the opposition papers on this motion therefore appear on the docket sheet as being filed on June 1, 2004.

Under these circumstances the court declines to enter a default judgment against defendants.

ERC's motion to file a further amended complaint is granted.

SO ORDERED.