- within Intellectual Property and Privacy topic(s)
- with readers working within the Aerospace & Defence industries
Every litigator has experienced a technology hiccup at an inconvenient moment. But courts have made clear that vague references to “technical difficulties” will not excuse a failure to appear—and once a default judgment is entered, vacating it is an uphill battle. The recent case of Chen Dongwu v New York City Regional Ctr. LLC offers a practical reminder of what courts expect from litigants, particularly those proceeding pro se, when it comes to managing their calendar and communicating with the court.
Background
A group of Chinese nationals that participated in the United States EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program (the “Program”) commenced an action against Defendant New York City Regional Center LLC (“NYCRC”). One plaintiff, Linda Han, consented to the withdrawal of his attorney in March 2023. After the withdrawal, plaintiff received two notices of virtual court appearances but failed to appear at either one. The court entered a default judgment, and plaintiff subsequently moved to vacate under CPLR 5015(a).
Court’s Analysis
Under CPLR 5015(a), a party seeking to vacate a default judgment must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a prima facie showing of a meritorious claim. Plaintiff failed on both prongs.
Plaintiff offered two explanations for his non-appearance: first, that “technical difficulties” prevented him from logging into the virtual conferences, and second, that the court was unreachable by phone, which prevented him from advising anyone of his pro se status.
The Court rejected both excuses. It found that these reasons did not constitute as reasonable excuse for Plaintiff’s default. The Court stated that Plaintiff’s affirmation provided “no process or procedure for receiving notice of his appearances or for calendaring discovery deadlines” and that Plaintiff failed to explain “why his properly noticed appearances were not calendared or otherwise scheduled [or] any insight as to any communication breakdown with co-counsel and opposing counsel that may have led to his nonappearance.” The Court further expressed skepticism about plaintiff’s alleged inability to reach the court by telephone, especially given “the special assistance that is afforded to pro se litigants by the Supreme Court of the State of New York.”
In short, the Court was not willing to find these reasons as a reasonable excuse to justify Plaintiff’s default.
The Court also found that Plaintiff did not make a prima face showing of a meritorious claim. The Court explained that while Plaintiff made general statements about his claim, Plaintiff did not “identify any other factors or evidence to support his claim” or set forth any arguments against dismissal of his complaint. A litigant need not prove the case at this stage, but they must “at least set forth facts sufficient to make a prima face showing of a meritorious claim,” something Plaintiff did not do here.
Given that substantial discovery and motion practice had already been completed, and in light of Plaintiff’s failure to sustain the standard under CPLR 5015(a), the Court held that Plaintiff “has not demonstrated a course of conduct consistent with a litigant who intended to pursue his claims” and denied his motion to vacate a default judgment.
Practical Takeaways
This decision is a useful reminder of several practical points for litigants and counsel alike:
First, courts will not accept “technical difficulties” as a reasonable excuse without more. A litigant must show what steps were taken to address the problem. The excuse must be accompanied by specifics.
Second, the transition to pro se status is a particularly vulnerable moment. When an attorney withdraws, the newly pro se party must immediately establish reliable systems for tracking court dates and deadlines. Courts will not lower the bar simply because a litigant is unrepresented.
Third, even if a litigant can show a reasonable excuse, general assertions about the strength of one’s claims are insufficient. Movants should identify specific facts and evidence supporting their position.
Finally, the simplest advice remains the best: calendar every court appearance the moment notice is received, set multiple reminders, and if a genuine emergency or technical issue arises, communicate with the court and opposing counsel immediately and document those efforts. A court is far more likely to exercise discretion in favor of a litigant who can show diligent engagement with the process, even when something goes wrong.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]