Mixon v. Stant USA Corp

Filing 13

ORDER granting 8 Motion because the company's neglect is excusable. Stant's effort to fight the merits is much belated. But the record shows a series of unfortunate confusions and omissions about the lawsuit. Most importantly, Mixon 9;s lack of opposition indicates that he will not be prejudiced by the tardy answer. No motion for a Clerk's default or a default judgment has been filed. The Court therefore reads Mixon's silence as a willingness to win or lose his case on the merits. Answer due by 4/21/2017. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 4/12/2017. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
PLAINTIFF

SAMUEL MIXON

v.

No. 5:16-cv-107-DPM

STANT USA CORP.

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Mixon hasn't responded to Stant' s motion to file its answer eight
months late. The U.S. Marshals Service made good service for Mixon, who is
proceeding in forma pauperis, in late June 2016. Stant does not contend
otherwise in its proposed answer.

Applying the Pioneer factors, and

considering all material things, Stant's motion, Ng 8, is granted because the
company's neglect is excusable. Chorosevic v. Metlife Choices, 600 F.3d 934,
946-47 (8th Cir. 2010). Stant' s effort to fight the merits is much belated. But
the record shows a series of unfortunate confusions and omissions about the
lawsuit. Most importantly, Mixon' slack of opposition indicates that he will
not be prejudiced by the tardy answer. No motion for a Clerk's default or a
default judgment has been filed. The Court therefore reads Mixon's silence
as a willingness to win or lose his case on the merits. Answer due by 21 April
2017.

So Ordered.

r.
United States District Judge

-2-