U S Bank National Association ND v. Elender Escrow Inc et al
Filing
186
ORDER denying 181 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court will construe Stewart Title's response to the Motion for Default Judgment to include requests for an extension of time to answer, and that request will be granted. Stewart Title's time in which to file a timely answer is extended up to, and including, June 29, 2012, nunc pro tunc to December 5, 2011. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 6/18/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ND
V.
CROSS-CLAIMANT
CASE NO. 4:11CV00123 JMM
ELENDER ESCROW, INC, ET AL.
CROSS-DEFENDANTS
CONSOLIDATED WITH
MARK AND KARLA GIBBS
V.
PLAINTIFFS
CASE NO. 4:10CV00293 JMM
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINS CAPITAL COMPANY, ET AL.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ND
V.
DEFENDANTS
CROSS-CLAIMANT
CASE NO. 4:10CV00293 JMM
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, ET AL.
CROSS-DEFENDANTS
ORDER
U.S. Bank’s Motion for Default Judgment against Stewart Title Guaranty Company
(“Stewart Title”) based upon Stewart Title’s failure to file a timely answer to U.S. Bank’s First
Amended Complaint is denied (#181) for the following reasons.
1
Similarly situated Co-Defendants Netco, Inc., and Netco Title, Inc., filed timely answers
to the First Amended Complaint which inure to the benefit of Stewart Title under the common
defense doctrine. See Angelo Iafrate Const. v. Potashnick Const. , Inc., 370 F.3d 715, 722 (8th
Cir. 2004) (“The common-defense doctrine in Arkansas law similarly states that if an answering
party asserts “a defense on the merits that equally applies to the other defendant,” the success of
the defense “operates as a discharge to all the defendants.”).
Moreover there is no evidence that Stewart Title’s failure to file a timely answer after the
Court’s decision on the Motion to Dismiss was in anyway willful, contumacious or intentional.
See Moore v. American Standard, Inc., 170 Fed. Appx. 16 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Ackra Direct
Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 857 (8th Cir. 1996) (default judgment for failure to
defend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 55 is appropriate if conduct is “willful, contumacious or intentional”).
Lastly, The Court finds that Stewart Title has sufficiently presented responsive pleadings
by filing a March 7, 2012 Joint Rule 26(f) Report and a June 8, 2011 Motion to Dismiss U.S.
Bank’s First Amended Complaint that contained a general denial of all U.S. Bank’s claims.
The Court will construe Stewart Title’s response to the Motion for Default Judgment to
include requests for an extension of time to answer, or other wise plead, and that request will be
granted. Stewart Title’s time in which to file a timely answer is extended up to, and including,
June 29, 2012, nunc pro tunc to December 5, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS
18
day of
June , 2012.
James M. Moody
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?