SSV, LLC v. Fletcher et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Jacob Fletcher's Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and Set An Evidentiary Hearing [ECF No. 38 ] is DENIED. Signed by Sr. District Judge John A. Ross on 3/25/24. (JAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SSV, LLC,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JACOB FLETCHER, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:22-CV-00537-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Jacob Fletcher’s Motion to Set Aside
Default Judgment and Set an Evidentiary Hearing. ECF No. 38. Because it is untimely and
meritless, the motion will be denied.
BACKGROUND
On May 16, 2022, Plaintiff SSV, LLC, brought this action against Jacob Fletcher and his
companies Shaman Supplies LLC and Awe Lounge, LLC for unfair competition and false
designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), common law trademark infringement, trade
dress infringement, dilution under Missouri law, Missouri common law unfair competition, and
cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). ECF No. 1. Defendants were properly served but did
not file answers to SSV’s complaint. On October 27, 2022, the Court entered a Default
Judgment and Permanent Injunction against them. ECF No. 28. After Plaintiff moved for
attorneys’ fees (ECF No. 33) and notified the Court that it changed its name to MIT45, Inc. (ECF
No. 32), the Court entered an Amended Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction reflecting
the corporate name change and ordering Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s costs and attorneys’ fees.
ECF No. 36.

Exactly one year after the Court entered the Amended Default Judgment and Permanent
Injunction, Defendant Jacob Fletcher filed the present Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and
Set an Evidentiary Hearing. ECF No. 38. In the one-page motion, Fletcher claims that the
parties came to a verbal agreement regarding the material terms of the lawsuit and that he was
not aware that he was required to file an answer. He therefore seeks to set aside the default
judgment and requests an evidentiary hearing to present evidence of that agreement and to crossexamine Plaintiff. Id.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move
for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or
otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have
prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation
of the judgment.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion must be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1),
(2) and (3), not more than one year after the judgment was entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
That one-year limitation period may restart if a subsequent ruling “substantially alters the district
court’s judgment in a manner that disturbs or revises the previous, plainly settled legal rights and
obligations of the parties.” Tool Box, Inc. v. Ogden City Corp., 419 F.3d 1084, 1089 (10th Cir.
2005) (quoted approvingly by Jones v. Swanson, 512 F.3d 1045, 1048 (8th Cir. 2008)).
Here, Fletcher appears to argue that the judgment should be set aside for reason (1): he
mistakenly believed that he was not required to file an answer. Because he did not file his
2

motion within one year of the Court’s entry of default judgment, and the amended default
judgment did not substantially alter that judgment, Fletcher’s motion is untimely and will be
denied.
Even if Fletcher’s motion did not run afoul of the one-year clock, the Court would
nevertheless conclude that the motion was not made within a reasonable time. Plaintiff served
Fletcher with its motion for default judgment on October 13, 2022, and the Court granted the
motion on October 27, 2022, so Fletcher would have known of his mistake at least 15 months
before he filed the present motion. For the same reason, Fletcher’s claim that he thought the
parties had an agreement relieving him of his responsibility to file an answer is wholly
incredible. As Plaintiff rightly notes, its service of a motion for default judgment for failure to
file an answer should have notified Fletcher that his belief was not shared by Plaintiff.
Fletcher identifies no other basis for setting aside the Court’s judgment. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Jacob Fletcher’s Motion to Set Aside
Default Judgment and Set An Evidentiary Hearing [ECF No. 38] is DENIED.
Dated this 25th day of March 2024.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3