Taryn A. Merkl
How Judge Merkl decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On default-judgment motions she scrutinizes the merits and the pleading even when the defendant's default is willful: a willful default does NOT earn judgment unless the well-pleaded facts state a valid claim element-by-element. In a 47 U.S.C. 605 signal-piracy case she denied default judgment because the complaint never alleged the defendant 'derived financial gain' from the broadcast -- an element of the claim. Plead every element; the default only concedes well-pleaded facts, not legal sufficiency.
“those facts still do not state valid claims, because they do not establish that the defendant derived financial gain from the unauthorized broadcast -- an element of 605.”
On default judgments she grants the core relief but prunes the complaint: she recommends entering judgment on the primary claim while dismissing claims that are duplicative or legally infirm. In Winwear she granted the breach-of-contract default ($277,046.40) but dismissed the conversion and fraud claims as duplicative of the contract claim; in St Louis she entered the FLSA/NYLL wage judgment but dismissed the NYLL wage-notice/wage-statement claims. Expect a clean-up of overlapping or standing-deficient theories.
“the Court respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment be granted ... but dismissing the conversion and fraud claims as duplicative of the breach of contract claim”
On Section 1983 summary judgment she applies qualified immunity as an independent, sufficient ground: she recommended granting the officers' MSJ on both no-genuine-dispute-of-material-fact and qualified immunity, and the recommendation survived de novo review of the pro se plaintiff's objections.
“no genuine dispute of material fact exists; that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and that for both reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.”
Procedural preferences
She enforces the obligation to prosecute: when a plaintiff repeatedly misses court-ordered default-judgment deadlines after explicit warnings, she recommends dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), weighing the delay, the notice given, prejudice to the defendant, and waste of judicial resources. Don't let a default case go dormant after the certificate of default.
“Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl recommended that the Court dismiss the case for failure to prosecute ... that he received proper notice about the risk of dismissal, and that future delay would prejudice the defendants.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Default judgment N = 3 |
Granted in part: 2Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Judge Merkl properly concluded that no genuine dispute of material fact exists; that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and that for both reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.”
“Judge Merkl recommended (1) dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff's claims under the New York Labor Law for wage notice and wage statement violations; and (2) entry of default judgment in Plaintiff's favor on the remaining claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.”
“the Court respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment be granted. The Court further recommends finding Defendant liable for the breach of contract cause of action, but dismissing the conversion and fraud claims as duplicative of the breach of contract claim ... judgment be entered in the amount of (1) $277,046.40 in damages and (2) $402.00 in costs”
“she recommended that I deny default judgment because the plaintiff has not established that the defendant has [no] meritorious defense ... those facts still do not state valid claims, because they do not establish that the defendant derived financial gain from the unauthorized broadcast -- an element of 605.”
Her REPORT & RECOMMENDATION (ECF 19, dated 2025-02-14) recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute (FRCP 41(b)) in an ADA case after the plaintiff repeatedly missed default-judgment deadlines despite warnings. ADOPTED by Judge Donnelly 2025-03-04. Non-motion sua sponte dispositive ruling -> recorded as an order read, EXCLUDED from motion stats. Grounded via Donnelly's adoption M&O (24-cv-00587-1).