Myers v. Bennett
Filing
16
OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (d/e 6 ) is DENIED. SEE WRITTEN ORDER. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 6/14/2017. (MJC, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 14 June, 2017 02:03:25 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MARK MYERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALLEN BENNETT,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 16-cv-3267
OPINION AND ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff Mark Myer’s Motion for Default
Judgment (d/e [6]) against the Defendant, Judge Allen Bennett.
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion (d/e [6]) is
DENIED.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant on September
27, 2016 (d/e [1]). Defendant was served on January 26, 2017.
Defendant’s answer to the Complaint was due by February 16,
2017.
On February 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Default
Judgment. Five days later, on February 27, 2017, Defendant filed a
Motion for Leave to File his Motion to Dismiss (d/e [8]).
On March 1, 2017, this Court granted Defendant’s Motion for
Leave to File his Motion to Dismiss. Defendant explained that his
delay was due to his attorney's erroneous calculation of the date to
respond to the Complaint. The Court found that Defendant's delay
was due to excusable neglect pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). Defendant's delay was minimal, as his answer
was due on February 16, 2017, and Defendant filed his Motion for
Leave to File Motion to Dismiss on February 27, 2017. The Court
entered no scheduling orders or decisions during those 11 days.
Given the brief delay and the inactivity in the case during the delay,
the Court found that allowing the late filing risked little danger of
prejudice to Plaintiff. Further, Defendant offered a reasonable
explanation for his delay and appeared to act in good faith. For
these reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances, the
Court found there was good cause to allow Defendant's late motion
to dismiss. See Simstad v. Scheub, 816 F.3d 893, 899 (7th Cir.
2016).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 authorizes the entry of
default judgment against a party who “has failed to plead or
otherwise defend.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), (b)(2). A default judgment
Page 2 of 4
is a harsh sanction, as it deprives the litigant in default of a
decision on the merits. Accordingly, imposition of a default
judgment must be proportionate to the wrong. See In re Madison,
168 B.R. 990 (D. Haw. 1994) (appellee’s one-day delay in
responding to appellant’s brief “cannot be condoned” but default
judgment was disproportionate to the wrong caused by the one-day
tardiness). Default judgment for a brief delay that did not result in
prejudice to the moving party is disfavored. See Isby v. Clark, 100
F.3d 502, 504 (7th Cir. 1996) (“default judgments are not favored,
especially in hotly contested cases”).
Because the Court allowed Defendant to file his Motion to
Dismiss, and for the reasons supporting that decision, the Court
denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. Defendant’s 11-day
delay in responding to the Complaint was short and caused no
harm to Plaintiff. Cf. Cannon v. Washington, 321 F.App’x 501, 502
(7th Cir. 2009) (defendants’ six week delay in answering complaint
did not justify default when defendants participated in discovery in
the meantime); Isby, 100 F.3d at 504 (defendants’ year-long delay in
answering amended complaint did not justify default when
defendants defended suit in pretrial proceedings).
Page 3 of 4
Additionally, Defendant has now defended the lawsuit with his
filing Motion for Leave to File and his Motion to Dismiss. Defendant
is not refusing to participate in the litigation. See Wickstrom v.
Ebert, 101 F.R.D. 26, 33 (E.D.Wis. 1984) (motion to dismiss
constituted defense against lawsuit for purposes of Rule 55). The
Court accordingly finds that default judgment is inappropriate.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (d/e [6]) is DENIED.
ENTER: June 14, 2017
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 4 of 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?