Lee v. n-Link Corp et al
Filing
37
ORDER granting 35 Motion to Set Aside Default. n-Link is to file a responsive pleading by July 22, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 7/2/2013.(abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Mark T. Lee,
Plaintiff,
vs.
EIBOT, LLC, and n-Link Corp.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No.: 1:12-2109-CMC-SVH
ORDER
This employment matter comes before the court on the motion [Entry #35] of
defendant n-Link Corp. (“n-Link”) to set aside the entry of default [Entry #13] pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). Plaintiff Mark T. Lee has affirmatively stated that he has no
objection to the motion. [Entry #36]. For the reasons that follow, the court grants the
motion to set aside the entry of default.
On June 14, 2013, the undersigned held a telephone status conference during
which Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that he had not attempted to reach either n-Link
or its counsel. [Entry #24]. That same day, the court noticed a hearing for the thenpending motion for default judgment for July 3, 2013. [Entry #25]. The court directed the
notice of hearing to be mailed both to n-Link’s registered agent and the counsel that had
represented it during the pendency of the underlying EEOC matter. [Entry #26].
Apparently through this communication, n-Link first became aware of this case and
promptly filed a notice of appearance. [Entry #30]. On June 25, 2013, Plaintiff moved to
withdraw the motion for default judgment [Entry #29], the motion was granted [Entry
#31], and the hearing cancelled [Entry #32]. On June 26, 2013, n-Link filed the instant
motion to set aside entry of default. [Entry #35].
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), an entry of default may be set aside for “good
cause.” Rule 55(c) must be “liberally construed in order to provide relief from the
onerous consequences of defaults and default judgments.” Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray,
Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954 (4th Cir. 1987)(internal quotation marks omitted). “Traditionally,
… relief from a judgment of default should be granted where the defaulting party acts
with reasonable diligence in seeking to set aside the default and tenders a meritorious
defense.” United States v. Moradi, 673 F.2d 725, 727 (4th Cir. 1982)); see Tolson v.
Hodge, 411 F.2d 123, 130 (4th Cir. 1969)(“[a]ny doubts about whether relief should be
granted should be resolved in favor of setting aside the default so that the case may be
heard on the merits”).
The Fourth Circuit has outlined the following six factors that district courts may
examine in deciding whether to grant relief from default for good cause shown: (1)
whether the moving party has a meritorious defense, (2) whether it acts with reasonable
promptness, (3) the personal responsibility of the defaulting party, (4) the prejudice to the
party, (5) whether there is a history of dilatory action, and (6) the availability of sanctions
less drastic. Payne ex rel. Estate of Calzada v. Brake, 439 F.3d 198, 204–05 (4th Cir.
2006).
First, n-Link appears to have a potentially meritorious defense to Plaintiff’s claim
of retaliation against it, arguing that it was not Plaintiff’s “employer” within the meaning
of Title VII. “[A]ll that is necessary to establish the existence of a ‘meritorious defense’
2
is a presentation or proffer of evidence, which if believed, would permit either the Court
or the jury to find for the defaulting party.” Id.
Next, the court finds that n-Link acted with reasonable promptness to seek relief,
having failed to respond to the summons and complaint due to oversight and mistake, as
the summons and complaint had not been forwarded to the appropriate individuals. Upon
receipt of notice of the hearing on the default judgment, n-Link immediately contacted
counsel for the parties and filed a notice of appearance. n-Link filed its motion to set
aside the entry of default within two business days of receiving notice of it. The court
finds n-Link has acted promptly. See, e.g. H&C Corporation v. Puka Creations, C.A.
No.:4:12-0003-RBH, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164235 (D.S.C. November 15, 2012)
(finding defendant acted promptly by moving to set aside entry of default 22 days after
receiving notice); Gathers v. Graham, C.A. No.: 9:12-cv-00716-JMC, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 153494 (D.S.C. October 25, 2012) (holding that defendant acted promptly by
moving to set aside entry of default within one week); Davis v. State Farm Life Insurance
Company, C.A. No.: 3:10-cv-372-JFA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48334 (D.S.C. May 17,
2010) (finding defendant acted promptly in moving to set aside entry of default 25 days
after notice).
Finally, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by allowing n-Link to respond to, and
defend against, his claims. Prejudice is not shown either by the fact that a plaintiff must
try the case on the merits, or the fact that a plaintiff’s possible recovery would be
delayed. See Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc., v. Fodor Contracting Corp., 843 F.2d
808, 812 (4th Cir. 1988) (finding no prejudice to plaintiff “beyond that suffered by any
3
party which loses a quick victory”). According to the representations of the parties,
written discovery has commenced, but they have taken no depositions because they were
awaiting a ruling on the motion for default judgment. [Entry #20]. The court entered a
second amended scheduling order on May 29, 2013 [Entry #22], which provides a
discovery deadline of September 26, 2013, that n-Link now represents it will meet [Entry
#35 at 9].
Based on the facts set forth above, the court finds that n-Link has demonstrated
good cause and excusable neglect. Furthermore, the court finds that n-Link acted with
reasonable diligence in seeking to set aside the default and has tendered a meritorious
defense. Therefore, applying the factors set forth above, the court grants n-Link’s motion
[Entry #35] and sets aside the entry of default [Entry #13]. n-Link is to file a responsive
pleading by July 22, 2013. The scheduling order entered on May 29, 2013 [Entry #22],
will govern the remaining deadlines in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 2, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate 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?