“Although a motion to set aside a default decree under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) is somewhat analogous to a motion to set aside a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), the standard for setting aside a default decree is less rigorous than setting aside a judgment for excusable neglect.”
How later courts described this case
- “Although a motion to set aside a default decree under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) is somewhat analogous to a motion to set aside a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), the standard for setting aside a default decree is less rigorous than setting aside a judgment for excusable neglect.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKESHIA WILLIAMS CIVIL ACTION NO.
VERSUS 23-1645-JWD-EWD
ENTERGY SERVICES LLC, ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is the “Motion to Request Extension for Process Service and Request for
Court to Stay Ruling on Shayla Atkins Motion to Dismiss Court’s Judgment on Granting Motion
for Clerk’s Entry of Default,”! filed by Lakeshia Williams (‘Plaintiff’). Through the Motion,
Plaintiff seeks an additional 30 days to file service information into the record for Defendants
Christopher Darden (“Darden”) and Jason Rees (“Rees”). Plaintiff explains that additional time is
necessary to provide service information for Rees, who was successfully served in Arkansas but
for whom proof of service has not been received, and for Darden, for whom service was delayed
because Plaintiff had a “bad address.” Plaintiff also requests that the Court “grant a stay for ruling
on Defendant Shayla Atkins’ motion to dismiss Court’s judgment for entry of default until Plaintiff
may have sufficient time to prepare and submit an adequate motion to request the Court to deny
Defendant Atkins dismissal motion and also to prepare an adequate motion for summary judgment
against Defendant Atkins.” Additional briefing is not necessary. The Motion will be granted in
part.
Extension of Time to Serve
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) provides for the dismissal of an action without prejudice if a plaintiff
fails to serve the defendant within 90 days of the filing of the complaint. However, if a plaintiff
TR. Doc. 53.
shows good cause for the failure to serve the defendant within the 90-day period, the court must
extend the time for service for an appropriate period. To determine whether good cause exists, the
Court looks at the actions of the plaintiff during the relevant time period.2 Whether a plaintiff has
made a showing of good cause “is necessarily fact-sensitive” and depends on the particular
circumstances of the case.3 Good faith on the part of the party seeking an enlargement and some
reasonable basis for noncompliance within the time specified is normally required.4
Plaintiff filed her Complaint December 5, 2023 alleging employment discrimination
claims.5 She moved for leave to amend her Complaint and requested an extension of time to serve,6
which requests were granted by the Court.7 At that time, Plaintiff was ordered to file adequate
service information into the record for all defendants by no later than April 5, 2024.8 To date, all
defendants but Darden and Rees have appeared. Plaintiff, who is representing herself, has
explained the need for additional time, timely sought the requested relief, and no party appears to
be prejudiced by the additional time to serve as most defendants who have appeared have obtained
extensions of time to file responsive pleadings. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an additional
30-day extension to file service information into the record for Defendants Christopher Darden
and Jason Rees will be granted for good cause.
Stay of Ruling on Defendant Shayla Atkins’ Rule 55(c) Motion to Set Aside Default and for
Extension of Time to Plead
On April 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Request of Clerk’s Entry of Default against
2 Winters v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 776 F.2d 1304, 1306 (5th Cir. 1985), quoting Charles Alan Wright &
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (1969).
3 Lindsey v. United States Railroad Retirement Board, 101 F.3d 444, 446 (5th Cir. 1996).
4 Id.
5 R. Doc. 1.
6 R. Docs. 5, 6.
7 R. Doc. 7.
8 Id.
8 defendants, including Shayla Atkins (“Atkins”).9 Attached to the Motion for Enty of Default was
Proof of Service that Atkins was personally served in Texas on March 8, 2024.10 The next day,
Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion to Request for Clerk’s Entry of Default, which sought a clerk’s
entry of default against 10 defendants. Atkins was still included.11 The Clerk of Court denied
entry of default as to all defendants, except Atkins, on April 2, 2024.12 Also on April 2, 2024,
Atkins appeared through counsel and filed a Rule 55(c) Motion to Set Aside Default and for
Extension of Time to Plead (“Motion to Set Aside Default”).13 On April 8, 2024, Atkins also filed
a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss in response to Plaintiff’s complaint.14
Plaintiff’s request for a stay on the ruling as to Atkins’ Motion to Set Aside Default will be
denied. The issue of whether the clerk’s entry of default as to Atkins will be set aside must be
decided before either her pending motion to dismiss or any to-be-filed motion for summary
judgment Plaintiff proposes. Under Local Civil Rule 7(f), Plaintiff’s response to Atkins’ Motion
to Set Aside Default is due by April 23, 2024. If Plaintiff wants additional time to respond to
Atkins’ Motion to Set Aside Default, she may file an appropriate motion requesting such relief
with an adequate explanation as to why she is unable to comply with the applicable time
limitations. Plaintiff is expressly advised that any response must address the applicable law on
default, as succinctly set out in Banks v. Kottemann Law Firm, Nos. 19-375/20-340, 2021 WL
1227619, at **5-6 (M.D. La. March 31, 2021) (deGravelles, J.) as follows:
According to Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
court may set aside an entry of default for good cause shown. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 55(c); [In re] Dierschke, 975 F.2d [181] at 183 [5th Cir.
1992]. “The decision to set aside a default decree lies within the
9 R. Doc. 27.
10 R. Doc. 27, p. 6. Under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), Atkins’ responsive pleadings were due by no later than
March 29, 2024.
11 R. Doc. 42.
12 R. Doc. 43.
13 R. Doc. 47.
14 R. Doc. 56.
sound discretion of the district court.” U.S. v. One Parcel of Real
Prop., 763 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted).
However, courts “universally favor trial on the merits.” Dierschke,
975 F.2d at 183 (quoting Bridoux v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 214 F.2d
207, 210 (D.C. Cir. 1954)). In addition, motions to set aside a default
are more readily granted than motions to set aside a default
judgment. Id. at 184; One Parcel, 763 F.2d at 183 (“Although a
motion to set aside a default decree under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) is
somewhat analogous to a motion to set aside a judgment under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b), the standard for setting aside a default decree is less
rigorous than setting aside a judgment for excusable neglect.”)
(citations omitted).
In deciding whether a defendant has shown good cause, “courts
consider three non-exclusive factors: ‘whether the default was
willful, whether setting it aside would prejudice the adversary, and
whether a meritorious defense is presented.’” Koerner v. CMR
Constr. & Roofing, LLC, 910 F.3d 221, 225 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting
Lacy [v. Sitel Corp.], 227 F.3d [290] at 292 [5th Cir. 2000)
(emphasis added); see also Sindhi v. Raina, 905 F.3d 327, 332 (5th
Cir. 2018) (outlining the same factors). Other factors, such as
whether the party acted expeditiously to correct the default, may
also be considered. Effjohn Intern. Cruise Holdings Inc. v. A&L
Sales, Inc., 346 F.3d 552, 563 (5th Cir. 2003). However, the Court
need not consider all of the factors in reaching a determination.
Jenkens & Gilchrist v. Groia & Co., 542 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir.
2008) (quoting Dierschke, 975 F.2d at 183 (finding the factors
should be treated in the disjunctive)). And “[t]he ultimate inquiry
remains whether the defendant shows ‘good cause’ to set aside the
default.” CJC Holdings, Inc. v. Wright & Lato, Inc., 979 F.2d 60, 64
(5th Cir. 1992) (citing Dierschke, 975 F.2d at 184).
Plaintiff is also advised that failure to timely respond will result in Atkins’ Motion to Set Aside
Default being considered as unopposed. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the “Motion to Request Extension for Process Service and Request
for Court to Stay Ruling on Shayla Atkins Motion to Dismiss Court’s Judgment on Granting
Motion for Clerk’s Entry of Default,”15 filed by Plaintiff Lakeshia Williams, is GRANTED IN
PART. Plaintiff shall file adequate service information into the record of this matter for
15 R. Doc. 53.
Defendants Christopher Darden and Jason Rees, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(l), by no later than May 13, 2024. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects, specifically
including denial of Plaintiff’s request for a stay of consideration of Defendant Shayla Atkins’ Rule
55(c) Motion to Set Aside Default and for Extension of Time to Plead. If Plaintiff desires
additional time to respond to Atkins’ Motion to Set Aside Default, she may file an appropriate
motion requesting such relief with an adequate explanation as to why she is unable to comply with
the current time limitations. Plaintiff is expressly advised that any response must address the
applicable law on default, as explained in this Order, and that failure to timely respond will result
in the Motion to Set Aside Default being considered as unopposed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall transmit this Order to Plaintiff
Lakeshia Williams, at the address listed on PACER, by regular and certified mail, return receipt
requested.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on April 12, 2024.
S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE