Access for the Disabled, Inc. et al v. Milan Consulting, Inc.
Filing
18
ORDER granting 13 Motion to Vacate Clerk's Default. Defendant shall file its response to the Complaint by no later than 2/4/2013. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 1/28/2013. (ams)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 12-62008-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED, INC.,
BOB COHEN, and PATRICIA KENNEDY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MILAN CONSULTING, INC., d/b/a
MACK’S CAFE,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VACATE CLERK’S DEFAULT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Clerk’s
Default [DE 13] (“Motion”). The Court has considered the motion, Plaintiffs’ Response
[DE 16], Defendant’s Reply [DE 17], and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 10, 2012, Plaintiffs Access for the Disabled, Inc., Bob Cohen, and
Patricia Kennedy brought suit against Defendant Milan Consulting, Inc., d/b/a Mack’s
Cafe, seeking relief under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42
U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., and the Florida Accessibility Code, Florida Statutes § 553.503.
Compl. [DE 1]. Plaintiffs served Defendant on October 15, 2012, and Defendant’s
response to the Complaint was due by November 5, 2012. See Return of Service
[DE 6]. On January 3, 2013, the Court issued a Status Report Order [DE 7], noting that
Defendant had not responded to the Complaint, and Plaintiffs had not moved for entry
of a default. Thus, the Court directed Plaintiffs to either file a status report or move for
entry of default. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs moved for a clerk’s default, which was
granted on January 4, 2013. See Mot. for Entry of Clerk’s Default Against Def. [DE 9],
Clerk’s Default [DE 10]. On January 8, 2013, Defendant filed the instant motion,
seeking to set aside the Clerk’s Default. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.
II. DISCUSSION
“It is the general rule that default judgments are ordinarily disfavored because
cases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Creative
Tile Marketing, Inc. v. SICIS Intern., S.r.L., 922 F. Supp. 1534, 1536 (S.D. Fla. 1996).
A court may set aside a clerk’s default for good cause shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c);
see also Compania Interamericana Export-Import, S.A. v. Compania Dominicana de
Avacion, 88 F.3d 948, 951 (11th Cir. 1996). “‘Good cause’ is a mutable standard,
varying from situation to situation. It is also a liberal one—but not so elastic as to be
devoid of substance.” Compania Interamericana, 88 F.3d at 951. To determine
whether good cause exists, the Court considers “whether the default was culpable or
willful, whether setting it aside would prejudice the adversary, and whether the
defaulting party presents a meritorious defense.” Id.
Here, Defendant asserts that good cause exists for three reasons. First,
Defendant contends that its default was not willful. Defendant represents that it
retained counsel on October 29, 2012, and that counsel timely prepared Defendant’s
Answer, which counsel believed had been filed in late October. Mot. at 2. However, at
that time, Defendant claims that counsel was traveling in areas affected by Hurricane
Sandy, limiting his ability to communicate with his office and ensure that the Answer
was properly filed. Id. According to Defendant, counsel realized his mistake when
2
Plaintiffs moved for a clerk’s default, and that he acted promptly to correct it. Id.
Therefore, Defendant argues, there is good cause to set aside the default. The Court
agrees. Defendant filed the present motion less than one week after entry of default
and there is no suggestion that Defendant is acting in bad faith. Consequently, the
Court finds that there is no evidence that Defendant’s delay was culpable or willful.
Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced if the Court
sets aside the default. Defendant points out that “this case is in its infancy, no
discovery has been done, and in fact, Plaintiffs had to be threatened with a lack of
prosecution by this Court.” Mot. at 6. Plaintiffs respond that they would be prejudiced
by having to continue to incur litigation expenses in this matter. The Court disagrees.
Relatively minor delays or increased litigation expenses do not qualify as actual
prejudice that would justify the denial of relief under Rule 55(c). See Gagnon v.
Fortner, Case No. 12-60478-CIV-MARRA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117868, at *22-23
(S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (finding that increased expense of litigation is not ‘actual
prejudice’) (citing Burrell v. Henderson, 434 F.3d 826, 835 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Delay in
adjudicating a plaintiff’s claim does not qualify as sufficient prejudice under Rule 55.
Instead, [a plaintiff] would have to show that the delay would result in a loss of
evidence, increased opportunities for fraud, or discovery difficulties.”)). The action is
still in its preliminary stages, and Plaintiffs have not alleged any substantial hardships
caused by the delay. Accordingly, the Court finds no indication that setting aside the
default would prejudice Plaintiffs in prosecuting this matter.
Third, Defendant asserts that it has presented a meritorious defense in that it
has removed all structures that violated the ADA from its premises. Indeed, on January
3
17, 2013, Defendant filed a Notice of Barrier Removal [DE 14], in which it advised the
Court that an ADA expert had submitted a report certifying that all barriers to
accessibility had been removed and that Defendant was in full compliance with the
ADA. Therefore, Defendant contends, Plaintiffs’ claims have been rendered moot by
Defendant’s compliance. Plaintiffs did not address Defendant’s notice or the expert
report attached thereto. Having examined the notice and the report, the Court finds that
Defendant has a meritorious defense, and therefore, that the default should be set
aside.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Clerk’s
Default [DE 13] is GRANTED. The Clerk’s Default [DE 10] is hereby SET ASIDE.
Defendant shall respond to the Complaint [DE 1] by no later than February 4, 2013.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, on this 28th day of January, 2013.
Copies provided to:
Counsel of record via CM/ECF
4
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?