Exeter Hospital, Inc. v. Kwiatkowski et al
Filing
31
ORDER granting 21 Joint Motion to Set Aside Defaults. So Ordered by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro.(jna)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Exeter Hospital, Inc.
v.
Civil No. 14-cv-09-PB
Opinion No. 2014 DNH 098
David Kwiatkowski, et al.
O R D E R
Exeter Hospital filed this suit in state court.
The
defendants subsequently filed a notice of removal in this court.
An administrative error resulted in the defendants failing to
timely file the required state court notice of removal prior to
the deadline to answer the complaint.
U.S.C. § 1446(d).
defendants.
Doc. No. 21-1; see 28
That court consequently defaulted each of the
Doc. No. 16.
With the exception of David
Kwiatkowski, all defendants have moved to set aside the entries
of default.1
Doc. No. 21.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), I “may
set aside an entry of default for good cause.”
The First
Circuit has stated that
1
The Hospital objected, arguing that the case must be remanded
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and I therefore may not
entertain the instant motion. Doc. No. 27. I recently rejected
that argument, see Exeter Hosp., Inc. v. Kwiatkowski, 2014 DNH
097, 18, and the Hospital does not object to the motion on any
other ground.
[t]here is no mechanical formula for determining
whether good cause exists and courts may consider a
host
of
relevant
factors.
The
three
typically
considered are (1) whether the default was willful;
(2) whether setting it aside would prejudice the
adversary; and (3) whether a meritorious defense is
presented. . . . [C]ourts may consider other relevant
factors, including (4) the nature of the defendant’s
explanation for the default; (5) the good faith of the
parties; (6) the amount of money involved; [and] (7)
the timing of the motion [to set aside the entry of
default].
Indigo Am., Inc. v. Big Impressions, LLC, 597 F.3d 1, 3 (1st
Cir. 2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)
(last alteration in original).
For the reasons discussed in the
defendants’ brief, I agree that each of these factors weighs in
their favor.
See Doc. No. 21; see also Indigo Am., 597 F.3d at
6 (citing Conetta v. Nat’l Hair Care Ctrs., Inc., 236 F.3d 67,
75 (1st Cir. 2001)) (noting the “preference for resolving
disputes on the merits”).
Consequently, I grant the defendants’
joint motion to set aside the defaults (Doc. No. 21).
The
default entered against Kwiatkowski remains undisturbed.
SO ORDERED.
/s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
May 6, 2014
cc:
Robert C. Dewhirst, Esq.
David Kwiatkowski, pro se
Jay Surdukowski, Esq.
2
Peter A. Meyer, Esq.
Mark A. Darling, Esq.
Mark W. Shaughnessy, Esq.
Robert G. Whaland, Esq.
Ralph Suozzo, Esq.
William N. Smart, Esq.
3
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?