Azar & Associates, P.C. v. Bryant et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, for 38 Motion to Set Aside Default,, filed by Deana Bryant, Exclusive Legal Marketing, Inc., Prime Legal Leads, LLC, Coety Layne Bryant, 41 Report and Reco mmendation. The Motion to Set Aside Clerk's Entries of Default as to Defendants, Coety Layne Bryant, Deanna Bryant, Exclusive Legal Marketing, Inc., and Prime Legal Leads, LLC (Dkt.# 38) is GRANTED. The Court orders the Clerk's Entries of Default against Coety Layne Bryant, Deanna Bryant, Exclusive Legal Marketing, Inc., and Prime Legal Leads, LLC (Dkts. # 25, 31 and 35) are hereby VACATED.. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 10/202017. (kls, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Plaintiff,
V.
JERRY L. BRYANT, ET AL.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§ CASE NO. 4:17CV418
§ Judge Mazzant/Judge Johnson
§
§
§
§

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action,
this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636. On September 22, 2017, the Report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing
proposed findings of fact and recommendations (see Dkt. #41) that the Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s
Entries of Default as to Defendants, Coety Layne Bryant, Deanna Bryant, Exclusive Legal
Marketing, Inc., and Prime Legal Leads, LLC (“Defendants”) (Dkt. #38) should be GRANTED,
and thus, the Clerk’s Entries of Default against Coety Layne Bryant, Deanna Bryant, Exclusive
Legal Marketing, Inc., and Prime Legal Leads, LLC (Dkts. #25, #31, and #35) should be
VACATED. See Dkt. #41 at 6.
Plaintiff Azar & Associates, Inc. filed objections to the Report (Dkt. #47). The Court
has made a de novo review of the objections raised by Plaintiff and is of the opinion that the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the objections are without merit
as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge. The Court hereby adopts the findings and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Plaintiff objects to the Report’s finding that Defendants’ default was not intentional and/or
willful. See Dkt. #47 at 2. Plaintiff re-asserts a number of arguments to the effect that Defendants’
explanations for their delay in responding are disingenuous and speculates about other likely
explanations for Defendants’ delay, such as weighing their options to file bankruptcy and/or
rearranging their corporate structures. See Dkt. #47 at 9-10. However, the Magistrate Judge
previously found there was insufficient proof of willful and/or intentional behavior by Defendants.
See Dkt. #41 at 5. The Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion, and
therefore, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.
To the extent that Plaintiff argues it will be prejudiced because Defendants will have time
to convey their assets and/or take other steps to avoid having to pay a judgment (see Dkt. #47 at
2, 7-9), the Magistrate Judge has already addressed this argument in the Report. See Dkt. #41 at
5. The Court agrees with the conclusion of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff can use discovery
to search for assets to pay the judgment due. Accordingly, the Court finds no error, and this
objection is overruled.
Plaintiff’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Defendants have valid, potential
defenses to Plaintiff’s asserted claims is also overruled. See Dkt. #47 at 2, 3-7. The Report clearly
explains the Magistrate Judge’s rationale for her conclusion, and the Court finds no error. As a
result, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
finding that the affidavits filed in support of Defendants’ motion were properly submitted evidence
in support of the motion. Thus, Plaintiff’s objection to this finding is overruled.
Finally, in light of the principle that the requirement of good cause should be interpreted
liberally, Amberg v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 934 F.2d 681, 685 (5th Cir. 1991), and the general
disfavor against default judgments, Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead and Sav. Ass’n, 874

2

F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1989), the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that default judgment is
improper here.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report, and
Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. Accordingly, the Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s Entries of
Default as to Defendants, Coety Layne Bryant, Deanna Bryant, Exclusive Legal Marketing, Inc.,
.

and Prime Legal Leads, LLC (Dkt.# 38) is GRANTED. The Court orders the Clerk’s Entries of
Default against Coety Layne Bryant, Deanna Bryant, Exclusive Legal Marketing, Inc., and Prime
Legal Leads, LLC (Dkts. # 25, 31 and 35) are hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 20th day of October, 2017.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3