US Bank N.A. v. Crawford
Defendant Fails to Establish Reasonable Excuse For Default in Answering; Vacatur Denied
August 30, 2017 at 12:00 AM
2 minute read
Justice Charles Wood
Defendant attended seven foreclosure settlement conferences concerning plaintiff bank's foreclosure action on the subject note and mortgage, but no settlement was reached and the matter was released with bank advised it may proceed with the action. She now sought to vacate her default, granted as she failed to appear or answer, nor seek an extension of time to do so, and for dismissal of the action claiming the court lacked personal jurisdiction as she was never personally served with notice. The court found the process server's affidavit constituted prima facie evidence of proper service, noting the affidavit indicated defendant was personally served and included a description. Defendant claimed the description was inaccurate—5'4-5'7 and 125-149 pounds, aged 75 year old female—as she was 90 years old and weighed nearly 210 pounds. The court stated the minor differences in the description did not rise to rebut the prima facie showing of Service. Thus, defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for defaulting. It also noted defendant did not deny being served, merely alleging she did not recall same. Further, as defendant moved to compel bank to accept her late answer well past 30 days of the initial appearance at a settlement conference, the motion was denied.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Second’ Time’s a Charm? The Second Circuit Reaffirms the Contours of the Special Interest Beneficiary Standing Rule
Attorney Fee Reimbursement for Non-Party Subpoena Recipients Under CPLR 3122(d)
6 minute readThis Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest: Constructive Trust Claim; Succession Rights; Tenant ‘Blacklisting Law’
Trending Stories
- 1Eversheds Sutherland Adds Hunton Andrews Energy Lawyer With Cross-Border Experience
- 2Balancing Judicial Authority: Understanding Sanctions, Severance, and Interferences
- 3Up in the Air: Boeing’s Deferred Prosecution Saga Continues
- 4Legal Tech's Predictions for Knowledge Management in 2025
- 5Fenwick Shutters Shanghai Office
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250