“Justice delayed is justice denied.” If a party needs to wait an unduly long time to reach a just outcome, this undermines the benefit of the judicial determination. However, even though delay may frustrate litigants and attorneys alike, it is often advantageous and necessary to the judicial process. Indeed, courts often benefit from delays.
Earlier in my career, I litigated a complex case in a busy jurisdiction. Several motions were filed, and the court almost always rendered a decision six months or so after the motions were fully submitted. I am willing to bet that some kind of standard in that jurisdiction required judges to file decisions within six months of motions being fully submitted, and this court would wait until right before that deadline to render a decision.
At one point in the case, two extremely complicated motions were pending. It was hard enough for the lawyers to get their minds around the issues and facts involved in this case, and it would certainly be difficult for court staff to unpack all of the information needed to render a decision in this matter. We did not receive a response from the court for months after the motion was fully submitted, and I expected that the court would probably wait until six months after the motion was fully submitted to render a decision.
While these two motions were pending, and months after the motions were fully submitted, the case settled. After the settlement agreement was signed, the parties filed a stipulation of discontinuance formally dismissing the case. Within hours, the court issued decisions denying the outstanding motions as moot since the case had settled. Since the court waited to render decisions on the outstanding motions, the court was able to save judicial resources by not having to adjudicate disputes before the final resolution of a case.
In other instances, judges are more overt when they try to delay making a decision so that the parties might have a chance to talk about their dispute and, hopefully, settle the case. A few times in my career, I have tried to vacate default judgments that were entered against my clients who did not know about lawsuits. Although default judgments can usually be vacated since courts like to decide matters on the merits, when there is opposition by the party seeking to maintain the default, the decision can be tricky and fact-intensive. In addition, courts may consider establishing a bond or conditioning their order to vacate a default on various terms.
In multiple instances, courts have adjourned their decision to vacate the default judgment and requested that the parties attempt to reach a settlement among themselves. Having a default hanging over a party’s head is a good motivator to resolve a matter without court intervention, since they might be able to reach a settlement they can live with rather than having their assets seized under a default judgment. The party to which the default judgment was awarded might also want to ensure they get something from a settlement than risk as default judgment being vacated and needing to litigate a case from scratch with an uncertain outcome. In multiple instances, by kicking the can down the road, the court was able to conserve resources since the cases settled on their own during the delay.
In sum, although delay in the administration of justice can be a burden for some litigants, it can also be a powerful tool. Courts may be able to conserve resources by delaying decisions and establishing conditions for the parties to voluntarily resolve a case.
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at [email protected].