Executive Center III LLC v. Meieran et al

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 9/8/10: denying 7 plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment; granting 11 defendant's Motion to Set Aside the Entry of Default. (cc: all counsel) (nm)

Executive Center III LLC v. Meieran et al

Do c. 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
____________________________________________ E X E C U T IV E CENTER III LLC, P l a i n t if f , v. A N D R E W MEIERAN, and A N D R E W MEIERAN FAMILY TRUST, D e fe n d a n ts . ____________________________________________ Case No. 10-CV-263

ORDER
O n June 25, 2010, the plaintiff, Executive Center III LLC ("Executive Center III"), requested that the clerk of the court enter default judgment against Andrew M e ie ra n Family Trust, one of the defendants in the above-captioned case. (Docket # 7 ). Three days later, the clerk complied with the plaintiff's request. However, on J u n e 29, 2010, Attorney Michael P. Dunn submitted a letter informing the court that h e had been retained by Andrew Meieran Family Trust and intended to file both an a n s w e r to the plaintiff's complaint and a motion to set aside the entry of default by th e clerk's office. (Docket #9). True to his word, on July 2, 2010, Attorney Dunn, on b e h a lf of his client, filed a motion to set aside the entry of default. (Docket #11). T h e plaintiff opted to ignore the defendant's motion and decided to not inform the c o u rt of its intentions regarding the defendant's motion. As the time for the plaintiff to respond to the motion has long expired, the court has no choice but to resolve the d e fe n d a n t's motion in its favor and to place this case back on the proper course.

Dockets.Justia.com

T h e court may set aside an entry of default "for good cause shown." Fed. R. C iv. P. 55(c). The court considers whether the moving party has shown: (1) good c a u s e for default; (2) quick action to correct it; and (3) a meritorious defense to p la in tiff's complaint. See Pretzel & Stouffer v. Imperial Adjusters, Inc., 28 F.3d 42, 4 5 (7th Cir. 1994). The court notes that default judgments are generally disfavored b e c a u s e they are inconsistent with the courts' preference to resolve disputes on the m e r i t s . See Coon v. Grenier, 867 F.2d 73 (1st Cir. 1989). Moreover, the district c o u rt is given great latitude in assessing the circumstances of the case to discern if g o o d cause for setting aside an entry of default exists. Jones v. Phipps, 39 F.3d 1 5 8 , 164 (7th Cir. 1994). Based on the representations in the defendant's brief to s u p p o rt its motion to set aside the entry of default submitted on July 2, 2010, the c o u rt can easily conclude that the defendant has demonstrated good cause to set a s id e the entry of default, as the entry was the result of a simple miscommunication b e tw e e n the defendant and its attorney. (Def.'s Br. 1-3). Moreover, the defendant to o k quick action to correct the entry of default and has presented several m e rito rio u s defenses to the plaintiff's complaint. (Def.'s Br. 4-6). Given the liberal s t a n d a rd for setting aside an entry of default, the lack of prejudice suffered by the p la in tiff due to the defendant's brief delay, and the defendant's potentially m e rito rio u s defenses to the plaintiff's complaint, the court will grant the defendant's m o tio n . The court will soon issue an initial scheduling order to ensure that this d is p u te is resolved in an efficient manner. A c c o rd in g ly, -2-

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Docket #7) be a n d the same is hereby DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion to set aside the entry of d e fau lt (Docket #11) be and the same is hereby GRANTED. D a te d at Milwaukee, W is c o n s in , this 8th day of September, 2010. BY THE COURT:

J .P . Stadtmueller U .S . District Judge

-3-