Vaughan v. Brigham
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) Plaintiff Michael Vaughans Renewed Motion for Default Judgment [Record No. 52] is DENIED. 2) The Clerk is directed to SET ASIDE the previous entry of default [Record No. 15]. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 6/21/2011.(AKR)cc: COR, plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
(at Frankfort)
MICHAEL DEAN VAUGHAN,
Plaintiff,
V.
MARY ELIZABETH BRIGHAM,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 3: 10-05-DCR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
*** *** *** ***
This matter is pending for consideration of Plaintiff Michael Vaughan’s Renewed Motion
for Default Judgment. [Record No. 52] For the following reasons, Vaughan’s motion will be
denied.
This case arises from an undeniably unique set of facts. Vaughan’s Complaint [Record
No. 2] sets out causes of action for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotion
distress. Despite the fact that Vaughan entered and then subsequently withdrew two different
affidavits of service [Record Nos. 6, 7, 12], the record indicates that the Plaintiff was finally
served a copy of the complaint and summons, by personal service, on February 23, 2010.
[Record No. 13] Because neither an answer nor responsive pleading was timely filed, in
accordance with Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk filed an entry of
default against Defendant Mary Brigham on March 29, 2010. [Record No. 15] Vaughan then
moved the Court for a default judgment. [Record No. 23]
-1-
At a hearing, on September 28, 2010, the Court denied Vaughan’s request for a default
judgment, finding that he had made false statements to the Court. [Record No. 45] On April 18,
2011, Vaughan filed a renewed motion for default judgment. [Record No. 52] However, the law
of the case doctrine precludes the relief sought by Vaughan. This doctrine provides that, “when
a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in
subsequent stages in the same case.” Scott v. Churchill, 377 F.3d 565, 569–70 (6th Cir. 2004)
(quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983)). A court is precluded from rehearing
or reconsidering issues “decided at an early stage of the litigation, either explicitly or by
necessary inference from the disposition.” Hanover Ins. Co. v. Am. Eng’g Co., 105 F.3d 306,
312 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting Coal Res., Inc. v. Gulf & Western Indus., Inc., 865 F.2d 761, 766
(6th Cir. 1989)). In short, the Court has previously denied Vaughan’s request for a default
judgment, and that ruling stands.1
Further, Rule 55(c) provides that a court may set aside an entry of default “for good
cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). The Sixth Circuit has established three factors to consider in
determining whether good cause exists to set aside a default: “(1) [w]hether culpable conduct of
the defendant led to the default, (2) [w]hether the defendant has a meritorious defense, and (3)
[w]hether the plaintiff will be prejudiced.” Waifersong, Ltd. v. Classic Music Vending, 976 F.2d
1
“The law of the case doctrine precludes reconsideration of a previously decided issue unless one of
three ‘exceptional circumstances’ exists: (1) where substantially different evidence is raised on subsequent
trial; (2) where a subsequent contrary view of the law is decided by the controlling authority; or (3) where
a decision is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Westside Mothers v. Olszewski, 454
F.3d 532, 538 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Hanover Ins. Co., 105 F.3d at 312). None of these “exceptional
circumstances is presented in the present case. See id.
-2-
290, 292 (6th Cir. 1992) (citing United Coin Meter Co. v. Seaboard Coastline R.R., 705 F.2d
839, 845 (6th Cir. 1983)). When the entry of default has not yet ripened into a default judgment,
“a somewhat more lenient standard is applied.” Shepard Claims Serv., Inc. v. William Darrah
& Assoc., 796 F.2d 190, 193 (6th Cir. 1986); Waifersong, 976 F.2d at 292 (“[T]he methodolgy
for considering these factors and the weight to be accorded to them depends on whether the court
is confronted by an entry of default or a default judgment.”).
The Court believes that all three weigh in favor of setting aside the Clerk’s entry of
default. First, on a review of the record, it is likely the defendant has at least one meritorious
defense to the claims asserted. Second, the Court sees no evidence which indicates that the
default was predicated by culpable conduct on the part of the defendant. Finally, while this
decision inevitably causes some measure of prejudice to the plaintiff who would certainly prefer
to resolve his claims without them being tested by the judicial process, the prejudice is
outweighed by the court’s “strong preference for trials on the merits.” Shepard, 796 F.2d at 193.
The Court considers these factors, in combination with its previous concerns regarding
Vaughan’s conduct, and finds that there is good cause to set aside the previous entry of default.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1)
Plaintiff Michael Vaughan’s Renewed Motion for Default Judgment [Record No.
52] is DENIED.
2)
The Clerk is directed to SET ASIDE the previous entry of default [Record No.
15].
-3-
This 21st day of June, 2011.
-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?