Blake (ID 96323) v. JPay et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Default Judgment (Docs. 60 and 74 ) are denied. Defendant JPay is ordered to respond to the Second Amended Complaint within seven days of the date of this Order. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 02/25/22. Mailed to pro se party Shaidon Blake by regular mail. (smnd)

Case 5:18-cv-03146-EFM-GEB Document 75 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

SHAIDON BLAKE,
Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No. 18-CV-03146-EFM-GEB

JPAY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on two motions by Plaintiff Shaidon Blake, proceeding
pro se, both of which request that a default judgment be entered against Defendant JPay, Inc (Docs.
60 and 74).1 The Court previously ordered JPay to show good cause, by February 23, 2022, as to
why the Court should not order the entry of JPay’s default under Rule 55. JPay responded to the
Court’s order by this deadline (Doc. 73).
The Court finds that good cause exists to avoid the entry of default. JPay has shown that,
in August 2020, it reached an informal understanding with Plaintiff’s then-appointed counsel that
it would not respond to the First Amended Complaint. It would instead wait until the filing of the

1
Doc. 60 is stylized as a Motion for Summary Judgment, but actually seeks a default against JPay because
of its failure to respond to his Second Amended Complaint.

Case 5:18-cv-03146-EFM-GEB Document 75 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 3

Second Amended Complaint, anticipated to be completed in September 2020, which would avoid
requiring JPay to respond to a complaint that was about to be superseded. JPay further informed
Plaintiff’s counsel of its contention that it was an improper party Defendant. It believed Plaintiff’s
counsel would ensure it was no longer named as a Defendant on the forthcoming Second Amended
Complaint. JPay’s counsel did not enter an appearance in this case, and therefore did not receive
electronic notification of any future filings.
The filing of the Second Amended Complaint did not proceed according to the anticipated
timeline. It was not filed until July 7, 2021. By that time, Plaintiff’s appointed counsel had
withdrawn, and Plaintiff was proceeding pro se. Though JPay was still named as a Defendant in
the Second Amended Complaint, the complaint does not reflect that it was served on JPay and
JPay’s counsel confirms that it was not.
It seems, then, that JPay, having neglected to enter an appearance, had limited
opportunities to receive updates about this case. It’s one apparent lifeline to this case was
Plaintiff’s counsel, who had withdrawn when the Second Amended Complaint was filed. JPay
already expected, given its discussion with Plaintiff’s counsel, that the Second Amended
Complaint would no longer name it as a Defendant. And when JPay did not receive notice of a
Second Amended Complaint, it seems to have assumed that its expectation was correct and that it
was dropped from the case. Though not a particularly wise assumption, especially given counsel’s
failure to enter an appearance, the Court believes that it resulted from the good-faith, informal
understanding JPay had reached with Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court therefore finds that good cause
exists for JPay’s failure to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
Motion for Default Judgment (Docs. 60 and 74) are DENIED.
-2-

Case 5:18-cv-03146-EFM-GEB Document 75 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that JPay respond to the Second Amended Complaint
within seven days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of February, 2022.

ERIC F. MELGREN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-