Standard Process, Inc. v. KDealz Ltd. Co.
Filing
29
OPINION & ORDER denying 21 Motion for Entry of Default; granting 23 Motion for Leave to File Answer; directing clerk of court to schedule a telephonic preliminary pretrial conference before Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 7/19/2018. (kwf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
STANDARD PROCESS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
KDEALZ LTD. CO. and JOHN DOES 1–100,
OPINION & ORDER
17-cv-909-jdp
Defendants.
Plaintiff Standard Process, Inc., manufactures nutritional supplements and sells them
exclusively through authorized resellers. It has filed suit against defendant KDealz Ltd. Co. for
trademark infringement and related claims. It alleges that KDealz is selling Standard Process
products online without authorization. KDealz responded to Standard Process’s complaint by
filing a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 9. On June 20, the court denied the motion. Dkt. 20. Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), KDealz had 14 days to file its answer. But it
didn’t. So Standard Process requested entry of default against KDealz, Dkt. 21, prompting
KDealz to move for leave to file its answer out of time. Dkt. 23.
Rule 55(a) provides that default must be entered against a party against whom
affirmative relief is sought, but who fails “to plead or otherwise defend.” KDealz failed to file
a responsive pleading by the deadline, but no one could say that it has failed to otherwise
defend. So the court will not enter default against KDealz.
As for KDealz’s motion to file its answer past the deadline, district courts have
discretion to allow late filings; the decision is an equitable one, taking into account the
prejudice to the opposing party, the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and the
movant’s good faith. See Simstad v. Scheub, 816 F.3d 893, 899 (7th Cir. 2016). Here, the delay
is less than two weeks, and there is no potential prejudice to Standard Process, as the
preliminary pretrial conference has yet to be scheduled in this case. The reason for the delay
appears to be a misunderstanding about the status of the answer deadline based on the court’s
earlier decision to strike the preliminary pretrial conference. This is not exactly a compelling
reason, but there’s no reason to doubt KDealz’s good faith in seeking leave to file its answer
now. So the court will allow KDealz to file its answer.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Standard Process, Inc.’s motion for default, Dkt. 21, is DENIED.
2. Defendant KDealz Ltd. Co.’s motion for leave to file answer, Dkt. 23, is
GRANTED. Defendant is directed to file its answer as a separate entry on the
docket.
3. The clerk of court is directed to schedule a telephonic preliminary pretrial
conference before Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker.
Entered July 19, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
2
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?