Rich Elbert v. Rollins
Rich Elbert, Jeff A. Kosek, Reichmann Land & Cattle LLP, Ludowese A.E. Inc., and Michael Stamer v. Brooke Rollins, Patricia Swanson, and Director of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-03668
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Elbert v. Rollins, Magistrate Judge Docherty granted the federal government defendants' motion to set aside a clerk's entry of default and extended their deadline to respond to the complaint to March 18, 2026, finding good cause and excusable neglect due to initial uncertainty about service, staffing shortages, and the absence of prejudice to the plaintiffs.
Federal government defendants (Brooke Rollins, Patricia Swanson, and the Director of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation) who had a default entered against them, and the five plaintiffs (farmers and farming entities) who had obtained that default. The order restores the normal litigation process by allowing defendants to respond to the complaint.
What happened
In Elbert v. Rollins (Case No. 25-cv-3668), five plaintiffs — Rich Elbert, Jeff A. Kosek, Reichmann Land & Cattle LLP, Ludowese A.E. Inc., and Michael Stamer — sued three federal government defendants, including the Secretary of Agriculture and officials related to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. After the defendants were served in November 2025, they missed two deadlines to respond to the complaint, and the Clerk of Court formally entered a default against them on February 24, 2026. The defendants then moved to have that default set aside and asked for more time to file their response.
The defendants explained that the U.S. Attorney's Office initially had no record of receiving a paper copy of the complaint, which created confusion about whether service had actually occurred. They also acknowledged that discussions with the plaintiffs' lawyers about agreeing to a time extension were never completed, partly because of staff shortages and heavy workloads related to other cases. The plaintiffs, for their part, stated they took no position on the defendants' motion — meaning they neither supported nor opposed it.
Magistrate Judge Docherty granted the motion in full. The judge applied the legal standards for setting aside a default (which require 'good cause') and for excusing a missed deadline (which also requires showing that the failure was the result of 'excusable neglect' — meaning an understandable mistake or circumstance beyond the party's control). The court found that the defendants' conduct was not blameworthy given the initial uncertainty about service and the workload pressures, that no prejudice to the plaintiffs was claimed, and that the defendants appeared to have acted in good faith. As a result, the clerk's entry of default was set aside and the defendants were given until March 18, 2026, to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.
The detailed version
This case, Elbert v. Rollins, Case No. 25-cv-3668 (KMM/JFD), is before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The opinion is an order by Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty, dated March 16, 2026, granting Defendants' Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Entry of Default and for Additional Time to Respond to Complaint (Dkt. No. 20).
Background
Plaintiffs Rich Elbert, Jeff A. Kosek, Reichmann Land & Cattle LLP, Ludowese A.E. Inc., and Michael Stamer filed suit against Defendants Brooke Rollins, Patricia Swanson, and the Director of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation — all federal government officials. Summonses were returned executed on December 9, 2025, reflecting service on all three defendants on November 19, 2025. No answers were filed by the January 20, 2026 deadline. The Court then ordered Plaintiffs to notify Defendants of their obligation to respond and the risk of default. When Defendants still failed to answer or obtain a stipulated extension by the new February 20, 2026 deadline, Plaintiffs applied for a clerk's entry of default, which was entered on February 24, 2026. The Court sent Defendants a notice letter on March 6, 2026, and Defendants filed the instant motion on March 11, 2026.
Defendants' Explanation
Defendants stated that the U.S. Attorney's Office had no record of receiving a paper copy of the complaint, creating initial uncertainty about service. They conceded, however, that Plaintiffs subsequently provided evidence of proper service and did not contest its validity. Defendants also acknowledged that a stipulation for an extension of time to answer had been discussed with Plaintiffs' counsel but was never finalized, citing workloads related to immigration habeas matters and a staffing shortage in the U.S. Attorney's Office. Defendants requested an extension to March 18, 2026. Plaintiffs responded that they took no position on the motion.
Legal Standards Applied
1. Setting Aside Entry of Default — Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c): A court may set aside an entry of default for 'good cause.' The Eighth Circuit's test from Johnson v. Dayton Electric Manufacturing Co., 140 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 1998), requires courts to consider: (a) whether the defaulting party's conduct was blameworthy or culpable; (b) whether the defaulting party has a meritorious defense; and (c) whether the non-defaulting party would be prejudiced if the default were excused.
2. Extension of Time — Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1): Because the deadline had already passed, the Court was required to find both good cause and excusable neglect. Citing Chorosevic v. MetLife Choices, 600 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2010), the Court noted that excusable neglect is a flexible standard covering late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, carelessness, or intervening circumstances beyond a party's control. The four key factors from Sugarbaker v. SSM Health Care, 187 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 1999), are: (1) possibility of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) length of the delay; (3) reasons for the delay; and (4) whether the moving party acted in good faith.
Holding
Judge Docherty granted the motion in full. As to blameworthiness, the Court found Defendants' conduct not culpable given the initial uncertainty about service, some effort to reach a stipulation, and competing workload pressures. The meritorious-defense factor was treated as neutral because the case is at an early stage. As to prejudice, Plaintiffs made no claim of prejudice. As to the extension request, the Court found the approximately two-month total delay (from the original January 20 deadline to the proposed March 18 deadline) to be reasonable, accepted Defendants' reasons for delay, and found no indication of bad faith.
Order
1. The Clerk's Entry of Default (Dkt. No. 17) is set aside. 2. Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended to March 18, 2026.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.