Design Basics, LLC v. Sage Homes, LLC

Filing 47

ORDER. ORDERED that the Motion to Set Aside Default filed on April 9, 2013, by Defendants Rentfrow Design, LLC and Jon Rentfrow (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED. The entry of default against Rentfrow Design, LLC and Jon Rentfrow (ECF No. 37) is SET ASIDE. The Rentfrow Defendants are directed to file a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand within fourteen (14) days of this Order, or by Wednesday, July 17, 2013 by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 07/03/13.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00191-WYD-KLM
DESIGN BASICS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAGE HOMES, LLC, RENTFROW DESIGN, LLC
and JON RENTFROW,
Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to Set Aside Default filed on
April 9, 2013, by Defendants Rentfrow Design, LLC and Jon Rentfrow (“the Rentfrow
Defendants”). The Clerk issued an Entry of Default as to the Rentfrow Defendants on
March 4, 2013. A default judgment has not yet issued. I note that Plaintiff filed a
response in opposition to the Motion to Set Aside Default on May 3, 2013, and a reply
was filed by the Rentfrow Defendants on May 10, 2013. Thus, the motion is fully
briefed.
Turning to my analysis, a party seeking to set aside an entry of default must
show good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). The good cause required to set
aside an entry of default, before a default judgment has issued, poses a lesser standard
for the defaulting party than the excusable neglect requirement which must be shown
for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Dennis Garberg & Associates, Inc. v. Pack-

Tech Int’l Corp., 115 F.3d 767, 775 n. 6 (10th Cir. 1997). “The principal factors in
determining whether a defendant has met the good cause standard are (1) whether the
default was the result of culpable conduct of the defendant, (2) whether the plaintiff
would be prejudiced if the default should be set aside, and (3) whether the defendant
presented a meritorious defense.” Hunt v. Ford Motor Co., No. 94-3054, 1995 WL
523646, at *3 (10th Cir. Aug. 29, 1995) (citing In re Dierschke, 975 F.2d 181, 183 (5th
Cir.1992)). The court does not need to consider all the factors, and may also consider
other factors. Id.
In the case at hand, I find despite Plaintiff’s opposition that the Rentfrow
Defendants have established good cause for the entry of default to be set aside. First, I
find that the default was not the result of culpable conduct by the Rentfrow Defendants.
They assert that prior to Plaintiff’s filing of the motion and amended motion for default,
the parties had entered into what the Rentfrow Defendants believed were settlement
discussions and these Defendants were unaware that Plaintiff had moved for default
against them. I also find that Plaintiff has not shown that it will suffer prejudice. While it
asserts that fact discovery has closed, this case is still in its early stages and Plaintiff
can seek to reopen discovery as to the Rentfrow Defendants. Finally, it appears that
the Rentfrow Defendants will present meritorious defenses. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion to Set Aside Default filed on April 9, 2013, by
Defendants Rentfrow Design, LLC and Jon Rentfrow (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED. The
entry of default against Rentfrow Design, LLC and Jon Rentfrow (ECF No. 37) is SET

-2-

ASIDE. The Rentfrow Defendants are directed to file a responsive pleading to the First
Amended Complaint and Jury Demand within fourteen (14) days of this Order, or by
Wednesday, July 17, 2013.
Dated: July 3, 2013
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior United States District Judge

-3-