Rivas v. Suffolk County, et al, No. 9:1995cv00387 - Document 227 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER denying 225 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 226 Motion for Default Judgment. Ordered by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 4/20/2009. (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------X RUDI RIVAS, Plaintiff, -against- MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER 95-CV-387 (ADS)(WDW) SUFFOLK COUNTY, SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY S OFFICE, LOLA FAE CATTERSON, as representative and executrix of the Estate of James Catterson, SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHN KUMIEGA, and JAMES RIVERA Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------X APPEARANCES: JAMES NEVILLE, ESQ. Attorney for the Plaintiff 14 Vanderventer Avenue, Suite 115, P.O. Box 1711 Port Washington, NY 11050 CHRISTINE MALAFI, SUFFOLK COUNTY ATTORNEY Attorney for Defendants Suffolk County, Suffolk County District Attorney s Office, Suffolk County Police Department, John Kumiega, and James Rivera H. Lee Dennison Building, Fifth Floor, P.O. Box 6100 100 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 By: Arlene S. Zwilling, Esq., Assistant County Attorney THEODORE D. SKLAR, ESQ. Attorney for Lola Fae Catterson as representative of the Estate of James Catterson 108 East Main St., P.O. Box 279 Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 SPATT, District Judge. The Court assumes the parties familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case. On April 17, 2009, three days before the start of jury selection in this matter, Rudi Rivas ( Rivas or the Plaintiff ), filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 arguing that he is entitled to a default judgment because of the Court s delay in bringing this matter to trial and the Defendants failure to comply with a July 1996 discovery ordering requiring the production of any documents relating to Rivas s alleged false arrest for attempted murder. First, to the extent that the Court and not Rivas himself has delayed this matter from going to trial, the Court fails to perceive how this alleged delay could possibly justify entering a default against the Defendants. Second, the Court will not entertain a default judgment made on the eve of trial that is founded upon alleged discovery abuses committed a decade ago. This strange move appears to be a delay tactic, in a long line of delay tactics by all sides, designed to preclude another trial in this matter. Accordingly, the Court finds no basis for entering a default judgment against the Defendants. III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plaintiff s motion for a default judgment is DENIED. SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: Central Islip, New York April 20, 2009 ARTHUR D. SPATT United States District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
