Clay v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company

Filing 363

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 307 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST CONSOL ENERGY, INC. FOR FAILURE TO FILE ANSWER TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 9/10/2013. (copy to counsel of record via CM/ECF)(nmm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
TONY B. CLAY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:12CV92
(STAMP)

CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA COAL
COMPANY, LLC,
a foreign limited liability
company and subsidiary of
Consol Energy, Inc.,
McELROY COAL COMPANY,
a foreign corporation and
subsidiary of Consol Energy, Inc.
and CONSOL ENERGY, INC.,
a foreign corporation,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
AGAINST CONSOL ENERGY, INC. FOR FAILURE TO
FILE ANSWER TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
I.

Background

On June 21, 2012, the plaintiff filed the original complaint
in this Court.

The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the

complaint, which the plaintiff responded to by filing an amended
complaint.

Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss

the plaintiff’s amended complaint.

This Court granted in part and

denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

As such, certain claims made against the defendants

were dismissed.

This action now specifically involves claims of

racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, a claim for

breach of the plaintiff’s employment agreement, and a claim for
violation of West Virginia’s Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Fourteen days after this Court entered its order granting in
part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, the defendants filed the following three docket
entries: (1) Consol Energy Inc.’s answer and affirmative defenses;
(2) McElroy Coal Company’s answer and affirmative defenses; and (3)
Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company LLC’s answer and affirmative
defenses.

Twelve days after these docket entries were made, the

plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against defendant
Consol Energy, Inc. (“Consol”) for failing to answer the amended
complaint.
The plaintiff argues that he is entitled to default judgment
because although it appeared based on the docket entry text that
Consol filed an answer, the actual filing attached to the docket
entry is a duplicate of Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC’s
(“Consol PA”) answer. Therefore, the plaintiff alleges that Consol
failed to timely file an answer.

Defendant Consol responded in

opposition to the plaintiff’s motion seeking default judgment,
arguing that it has shown an intention to actively defend the suit
and default judgment is inappropriate in this situation as it was
merely a mistake in docketing.

Further, defendant Consol, on the

same day the plaintiff filed his motion for default judgment, filed

2

a docket entry containing the correct docket text and attaching
defendant Consol’s answer rather than Consol PA’s answer.
II.

Applicable Law

To obtain a default judgment, a party must first seek an entry
of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). Under Rule
55(a), an entry of default is appropriate “[w]hen a party against
whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to
plead or otherwise defend . . . .”

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

Once

default is entered by the clerk, the party may seek a default
judgment under Rule 55(b)(1) or (2), depending on the nature of the
relief sought.

If the plaintiff’s claim is for “a sum certain” or

a “sum that can be made certain by computation,” the plaintiff may
seek entry of default judgment from the clerk under Rule 55(b)(1).
However, in cases in which the plaintiff seeks a form of relief
other than liquidated damages, Rule 55(b)(2) requires plaintiff to
seek an entry of default judgment from the court.
It is well-established in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit that default judgments are to be granted
sparingly.
951,

954

See, e.g., Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d
(4th

Cir.

1987).

“[T]rial

judges

are

vested

with

discretion, which must be liberally exercised, in entering such
judgments and in providing relief therefrom.”
Moradi, 673 F.2d 725, 727 (4th Cir. 1982).

3

United States v.

III.

Discussion

As the defendants state, default should not be entered under
Rule 55(a) when a party has shown an intention to actively defend
against the suit.

See Johnson v. Warner, No. 7:05CV00219, 2009 WL

586730, at *4 (W.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2009).

Additionally, this Court

agrees that “strong public policy favors resolving disputes on the
merits and not by default judgment.”

Id. (quoting Pecarsky v.

Galaxiworld.com Ltd., 249 F.3d 167, 172 (2d Cir. 2001)).

It is

clear that all defendants intended to actively defend this suit, as
is shown from the filing of their motions to dismiss.

Further, it

is also clear that defendant Consol intended to file a timely
answer, but instead erred by attaching the incorrect filing to its
original docket entry.

This error was remedied immediately upon

the plaintiff’s filing of the motion for default judgment when
defendant Consol made a subsequent filing attaching its answer
rather than Consol PA’s answer.

Based on these facts, and the

plaintiff’s failure to show any prejudice as a result of this
error,

this

judgment.

Court

denies

the

plaintiff’s

motion

for

default

Prelov v. G.D. Searle & Co., 621 F. Supp. 1146, 1147 (D.

Md. 1985) (stating that the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for
default judgment in the absence of any showing of prejudice as a
result of the delay in the defendant filing its answer) (citing
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co. v. Metal Trades Council, 726 F.2d
166, 168 (5th Cir. 1984)).

4

IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the plaintiff’s motion for
default judgment against defendant Consol for failure to file an
answer to the amended complaint (ECF No. 307) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein.
DATED:

September 10, 2013

/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5