Medina v. Brothers Behrman Hwy., Inc. et al
Filing
19
ORDER AND REASONS granting 15 Motion to Set Aside Default. The 13 Order on Motion for Entry of Default is hereby set aside. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo. (ecm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
REINA MEDINA
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 13–4831
BROTHERS BEHRMAN HWY., INC. ET AL.
SECTION "H"(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Set Aside Default (R. Doc. 15) filed by Defendants Brothers
Behrman Hwy., Inc. ("Behrman") and Brothers Stump and Terry Parkway, LLC ("Stump"). For the
following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED, and the entry of default (R. Doc. 13) is hereby SET
ASIDE.
BACKGROUND
This is a civil action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
Plaintiff Reina Medina filed her complaint on June 18, 2013, naming Berhman and Stump as
1
Defendants. On February 13, 2014, the clerk of court entered default against Defendants. Five days
later, Defendants moved to set aside the default and filed an answer to Plaintiff's complaint.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 55(c) permits the trial court to set aside an entry of default for "good cause." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 55(c). To determine whether "good cause" has been shown, a district court should consider
(1) whether the default was willful; (2) whether granting the motion would prejudice the non‐
moving party; and (3) whether a meritorious defense is presented. Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290,
292 (5th Cir. 2000). These factors, however, are not "talismanic" and the Court may consider
others such as whether the public interest was implicated, whether there was significant financial
loss to the defendant, and whether the defendant acted expeditiously to correct the default.
Dierschke v. O'Cheskey, 975 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir. 1992). In deciding a Rule 55(c) motion, the
Court is mindful that default judgments are generally disfavored by the law and that any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the movant. See Lacy, 227 F.3d at 292.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The balance of factors weighs heavily in favor of setting aside default. The default was
clearly not willful. Defendants' failure to timely answer the lawsuit was due to administrative
oversight. Moreover, any potential prejudice Plaintiff would suffer as a result of setting aside
2
default is negligible. There is no trial date set in this matter, and the record does not reflect that
any discovery has taken place. The Court also notes Defendants acted expeditiously to correct the
default. Defendants filed a responsive pleading and a motion to set aside default five days after
the clerk of court entered default. Finally, the Court finds that Defendants have presented a
meritorious defense in their answer. See Side by Side Redevelopment v. City of New Orleans, No.
09–3861, 2010 WL 375237, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 25, 2010) (finding meritorious defense present in
answer if "allegations . . . contain even a hint of a suggestion which, proven at trial, would
constitute a complete defense.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
In sum, the Court finds that the entry of default was not willful, that Defendants acted
quickly to remedy the default, that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by setting aside the default, and
that Defendants can present a meritorious defense. Given the foregoing, there can be no doubt
Defendants have established the good cause necessary under Rule 55(c). Accordingly, the entry
of default against Defendants shall be set aside.
3
CONCLUSION
For the reasons previously stated, the Motion is granted, and the default against
Defendants is hereby set aside.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of June, 2014.
______________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?