Hoke v. Lyle et al

Filing 55

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that the Court GRANTS Defendants' 51 MOTION for Relief from Default, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to SET ASIDE each Defendant's default, and allow Defendants to proceed in defending against this action. Any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation is ordered to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. (Objections to R&R due by 2/15/2019). ORDER directing service of the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Benjamin W. Cheesbro on 2/1/2019. (csr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
STEPHEN RAY HOKE,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-45

v.
MR. LYTE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Valient Lyte, Tiffany Henry, and Stanley
Williams’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Relief from Default. Doc. 51. For the reasons set forth
below, I RECOMMEND the Court GRANT Defendants’ Motion, DIRECT the Clerk of Court
to SET ASIDE each Defendant’s default, and allow these Defendants to proceed in defending
against this action.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in this case on April 21, 2016, naming five
Defendants: Nathan Deal; Homer Bryson; Valient Lyte; Stanley Williams; and Tiffany Henry.
Doc. 1. Following the requisite frivolity review, Plaintiff’s claims against Deal and Bryson were
dismissed in their entirety and some, but not all, of the claims against the remaining three
Defendants were dismissed. Docs. 8, 14. Because the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, the Court directed the United States Marshals to serve Defendants Lyte,
Williams, and Henry. Doc. 9. Defendants Lyte, Williams, and Henry executed waivers of
service, giving them until October 11, 2016, to file their answers. Docs. 11, 12, 13.

Defendants Lyte, Williams, and Henry jointly moved to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims
against them. Doc. 16. Ultimately, the Court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing all
claims against all remaining Defendants. Docs. 27, 29. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
Doc. 31.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined Plaintiff, who had not
previously amended his Complaint but had requested leave to do so prior to Defendants’ filing of
their motion to dismiss, had the right to amend as a matter of course. Doc. 36 at 4. The Eleventh
Circuit found this Court erred by not granting Plaintiff leave to amend as a matter of course,
vacated this Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and remanded the case back to this Court.
Id.
In accordance with the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion, this Court directed Plaintiff to file an
amended Complaint within 14 days of its May 7, 2018 Order and allowed Defendants 21 days
from the date of filing of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint to respond. Doc. 40. Upon Plaintiff’s
request, the Court extended the time for Plaintiff to file his Amended Complaint by an additional
21 days, making Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint due by July 1, 2018. Docs. 41, 42. Despite the
extension, Plaintiff did not execute his Amended Complaint until July 24, 2018, and it was not
filed until August 15, 2018. 1 Doc. 48 at 25. The Amended Complaint again names Defendants
Lyte, Henry, and Williams, and, for the first time, names Defendants Dozier, Allen, Pinero, and
Lane. Id. at 1. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not name Deal or Bryson.
By the Court’s earlier Order, Defendants Lyte, Henry, and Williams were to file their
answer or responsive motion to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint within 21 days from the date

1

Plaintiff contends he attempted to mail the Amended Complaint soon after executing the
document (which was still several weeks after the Court imposed deadline for filing), but he encountered
difficulty in sending the document. Doc. 48-1.

2

Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, and, as a result, had to file their response no later than
September 5, 2018. 2 Doc. 42. Defendants failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint, and, instead filed the instant Motion for Relief from Default on September 13, 2018,
and a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2018. Docs. 51, 52.
By operation of law, Defendants have entered into default for not timely answering or
otherwise defending against Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Plaintiff, however, has neither
moved for an entry of default nor responded to the present Motion. In addition, the Clerk of
Court has yet to enter Defendants’ respective defaults.
DISCUSSION
Defendants assert their counsel “inadvertently missed the notification that an amended
complaint had been filed” and did not file a timely response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
Doc. 51-1 at 3. Defendants also assert they did not willfully ignore Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint or intentionally delay responding to this Court’s deadlines. Id. at 5.
A defendant who does not timely answer or otherwise defend against a cause of action
brought against him falls into default. Fed. R. Civ P. 55(a). Defaults and default judgments are
disfavored, are a drastic remedy, and should be resorted to only in extreme situations. Mitchell
v. Brown & Williamson, 294 F.3d 1309, 1316–17 (11th Cir. 2002). Under Rule 55, “the court
may set aside an entry of default for good cause” prior to a default judgment being entered.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c); see Jones v. Harrell, 858 F.2d 667, 669 (11th Cir. 1988) (explaining that
Rule 55(c) applies when a judgment has not been entered and provides the court discretion to set
aside a default, while the more stringent provisions of Rule 60(b) apply only when a judgment

2

As explained above, Defendants Lyte, Henry, and Williams waived service in this case, and,
therefore, no additional service was required. From the record, it appears that the new Defendants
(Dozier, Allen, Pinero, and Lane) have not been served. The Court will conduct the requisite frivolity
review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

3

has been entered). While the “good cause” standard varies depending on the facts of a particular
case, general guidelines are frequently applied. Compania Interamericana Exp.-Imp., S.A. v.
Compania Dominicana, 88 F.3d 948, 951 (11th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).
In determining whether there is “good cause” to set a default aside, courts have
considered: “(a) whether the default was culpable or willful; (b) whether setting it aside would
prejudice the adversary; (c) whether the defaulting party presents a meritorious defense;
(d) whether there was significant financial loss to the defaulting party; and (e) whether the
defaulting party acted promptly to correct the default.” SEC v. Johnson, 436 F. App’x 939, 945
(11th Cir. 2011) (citing Compania, 88 F.3d at 951–52). Importantly, courts in the Eleventh
Circuit “view defaults with disfavor” due to the “strong policy of determining cases on their
merits.” In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2003) (citations
omitted). However, where “a party willfully defaults by displaying either an intentional or
reckless disregard” for judicial proceedings, the court may properly deny a motion to set aside
the default. Compania, 88 F.3d at 951–52 (citation omitted).
In this case, Defendants have established good cause to set aside their defaults. The
Court finds that Defendants’ failure to answer or defend by the Court’s imposed deadline was
neither culpable nor willful. Defendants’ counsel shoulders the blame for their defaults, as she
avers she did not enter an appearance in this Court at the same time she entered an appearance
with the Eleventh Circuit. Doc. 51-1 at 5. Counsel alleges she discovered her oversight only
five days after an answer or responsive pleading was due, and she filed the instant Motion only
three days later. Counsel’s slight error, which she acted promptly to remedy, should not deprive
Defendants of an opportunity to defend this case on the merits. Fla. Physician’s Ins. Co. v.
Ehlers, 8 F.3d 780, 783 (11th Cir. 1993). Moreover, Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss

4

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint only nine days past the deadline. Finally, the Court finds
Plaintiff, who has not opposed this Motion, will suffer little prejudice in setting aside this default
because the Court has not reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, no answer has been filed,
and discovery has not commenced. 3 I find there is good cause to excuse Defendants’ defaults.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I RECOMMEND the Court GRANT Defendants’
Motion, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to SET ASIDE each Defendant’s default, and allow these
Defendants to proceed in defending against this action.
The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to
file specific written objections within 14 days of the date on which this Report and
Recommendation is entered. Any objections asserting that the Magistrate Judge failed to address
any contention raised in the Complaint must also be included. Failure to do so will bar any later
challenge or review of the factual findings or legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). A copy of the objections must be
served upon all other parties to the action.
Upon receipt of Objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above, a United
States District Judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, proposed
findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Objections not
meeting the specificity requirement set out above will not be considered by a District Judge. A
party may not appeal a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation directly to the United States

3

Plaintiff’s late execution and filing of his Amended Complaint complicated the issue of
Defendants’ response time. While Plaintiff has not made any attempt to justify his failure to file the
Amended Complaint within the Court’s deadline, the Court finds that, in these circumstances, Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint will be deemed timely.

5

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made only from a final judgment
entered by or at the direction of a District Judge. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to serve
a copy of this Report and Recommendation upon the parties.
SO ORDERED and REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this 1st day of February,
2019.

____________________________________
BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

6