Order | Filed: September 28, 2026
| Entered: September 28, 2026
Taylor v. Cooper Power & Lighting Corp. et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Eastern
Order Adopting Report and Recommendations Order on Motion to Show Cause Order on Report and Recommendations
ORDER: On August 16, 2026, the Honorable Steven I. Locke issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended that the Court deny Defendant Austin Rutella's Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the default judgment against him and dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which he brought by order to show cause to temporarily restrain and preliminarily enjoin Plaintiff Kyrin Taylor from enforcing the default judgment while the Court considers the motion to vacate. See ECF No. 86 ; ECF No. 78 . Consistent with Rule 72(a), the R&R advised the parties that they had 14 days from its filing to file objections to it. See ECF No. 86 at 10.
On August 31, 2026, Defendant filed an objection to the R&R, arguing that: (1) his prior attorney, Kevin Krupnick, defrauded him, and "an attorney's fraud is a cognizable reason for vacating a judgment under Rule 60(b)"; (2) the instant motion to vacate advances new arguments based on new evidence of Krupnick's misconduct, which were not the basis of his prior motion to vacate, see ECF No. 65 ; (3) Defendant has meritorious defenses that warrant vacating the default judgment; and (4) Plaintiff would not be prejudiced if the Court were to do so, see ECF No. 87 at 2-5.
The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). For dispositive matters, the Court must "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). For those portions of the R&R to which no proper objection is made, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no "clear error on the face of the record." Miller v. Brightstar Asia, Ltd., 43 F.4th 112, 120 n.4 (2d Cir. 2022). "When a timely filed objection raises and properly briefs arguments," even arguments "previously rejected by the magistrate judge, the district judge must review those arguments de novo." Nambiar v. Cent. Orthopedic Grp., LLP , 158 F.4th 349, 361 (2d Cir. 2025). Here, Defendant presented timely, specific arguments in his objection to the R&R, and the Court therefore reviews the R&R de novo.
Because "a default judgment is the most severe sanction which the court may apply," the Second Circuit has "expressed a strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits." New York v. Green, 420 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2005). In deciding a motion to vacate a default judgment under Rule 60(b), a district court should resolve all doubts in favor of the party seeking relief from the judgment and, in doing so, is "guided by three principal factors: (1) whether the default was willful, (2) whether the defendant demonstrates the existence of a meritorious defense, and (3) whether, and to what extent, vacating the default will cause the nondefaulting party prejudice." Id. at 104, 108. The Court addresses each factor in turn.
First, in the context of a default, "willfulness" refers to conduct by counsel or a litigant "that is more than merely negligent or careless," but rather "egregious" and "not satisfactorily explained." S.E.C. v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732, 738 (2d Cir. 1998). For example, courts have found defaults willful where "an attorney failed, for unexplained reasons, to respond to a motion for summary judgment," or "failed, for untenable reasons, after defendants had purposely evaded service for months, to answer the complaint." Id. at 738-39 (collecting cases). Here, although Plaintiff filed the instant action on April 19, 2022, see ECF No. 1 , and Defendant retained his prior counsel, Krupnick, on October 19, 2022, see ECF No. 78-3, Krupnick failed to file a single submission until over two years later, after the Court had already entered a default judgment against his client, see October 21, 2024, Text Order; ECF No.
Response | Filed: August 31, 2026
| Entered: August 31, 2026
Taylor v. Cooper Power & Lighting Corp. et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Eastern
Objection to Report and Recommendations
OBJECTION to 86 Report and Recommendations filed by Austin Rutella. (Wabnik, Debra)