Ware et al v. Daybrook Fisheries, Inc. et al

Filing 15

ORDER AND REASONS granting 13 MOTION to Set Aside Default; the default against Defendant Patrick Dinet is set aside. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on 5/18/2015.(blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSEPH WARE ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-2229

DAYBROOK FISHERIES, INC ET AL.

SECTION "H"

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Set Aside Default (R. Doc. 13).
For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED, and the default against
Defendant Patrick Dinet is set aside.
BACKGROUND
In this diversity action, Plaintiffs Joseph and Deborah Ware brought an
action against Mr. Ware's employer, Daybrook Fisheries, Inc., and his
supervisor, Patrick Dinet, for battery and failure to provide Plaintiff with a
reasonably safe work environment. On March 27, 2015, the clerk entered
default against Dinet. On that same day, Dinet moved this Court to set aside
1

the default.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 55(c) permits the trial court to set aside an entry of default for "good
cause."1 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.2 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.3 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.4
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The balance of factors weighs heavily in favor of setting aside default in
this matter. First, the default was clearly not willful. Dinet's failure to timely
answer the lawsuit was due to some confusion and miscommunication over
whether Dinet would obtain separate counsel from Defendant Daybrook
Fisheries.
Second, any potential prejudice Plaintiff would suffer as a result of setting
1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c).

2

Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2000).

3

Dierschke v. O'Cheskey, 975 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir. 1992).

4

See Lacy, 227 F.3d at 292.

2

aside default is negligible. There is no trial date set in this matter, and the
parties contend that no discovery has taken place. Indeed, Plaintiff states that
it does not oppose the relief requested by Dinet in this Motion.
Third, the Court notes that Dinet acted expeditiously to correct the
default. He filed a motion to set aside default, attaching an answer, on the very
day that the clerk of court entered default.
Finally, the Court finds that Dinet has presented a meritorious defense in
his answer.5 Dinet raises nineteen affirmative defenses, including self defense.
In sum, the Court finds that the default was not willful, that Defendant
acted quickly to remedy the default, that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by
setting aside the default, and that Defendant can present a meritorious defense.
Given the foregoing, there can be no doubt that Defendant has established the
good cause necessary under Rule 55(c). Accordingly, the entry of default against
Defendant Dinet shall be set aside.

5

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)).

3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED, and the default
against Defendant Patrick Dinet is set aside.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of May, 2015.

___________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4