Manz v. Restaurant Los Tacos No. 1

Background

Faycal Manz brought a tort action against Restaurant Los Tacos No. 1, alleging that he suffered several injuries after consuming various hot sauces at the restaurant. Manz filed the complaint on October 2, 2024. He later filed proof stating that the summons and complaint had been served on an individual identified as “Migual P.,” described as a manager at the restaurant.

The restaurant did not timely respond, so the Clerk of Court entered a certificate of default on November 7, 2024. Manz then moved for default judgment. The restaurant appeared through counsel on November 22, 2024, filed an answer, and opposed Manz’s motion. The court treated the opposition as a motion to set aside the entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c).

Legal Standard

Under Rule 55(c), a court may set aside an entry of default for “good cause.” The court considered three factors: whether the default was willful, whether the defendant had a potentially valid defense, and whether setting aside the default would prejudice the plaintiff. The court explained that opposition to a default-judgment motion may serve as a request to set aside the default even when the defendant has not filed a separate motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the restaurant’s default was not willful. Although the restaurant failed to respond on time, it later appeared through counsel, filed an answer and other papers, and opposed the default-judgment motion. Based on that participation, the court concluded that the restaurant had not simply ignored the lawsuit.

The court also found that setting aside the default would not unduly prejudice Manz. Manz argued that the delay interfered with efficient and timely resolution of the case and caused emotional and financial stress. The court stated that delay alone does not establish prejudice and found that Manz had not shown that the delay caused or would cause loss of evidence, more difficult discovery, or a greater risk of fraud or collusion.

Because the willfulness and prejudice factors favored setting aside the default, the court did not decide whether the restaurant had a meritorious defense.

Disposition

The court concluded that good cause existed to set aside the Clerk’s entry of default. Defendant’s motion for relief from default was GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment was DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk was asked to terminate the default-judgment motion from the docket. Judge Dale E. Ho signed the opinion and order.