Throndson v. Sargent's Nursery

Background

Jan B. Throndson filed a complaint asserting an age-discrimination claim against Sargent’s Nursery and had the summons and complaint served on the defendant. The response deadline was May 6, 2022, but Sargent’s did not respond by that date. Throndson later filed two motions for default judgment, which ask the court to enter judgment against a party that failed to respond.

The defendant, identified in its filings as Sargent’s Landscape Nursery Inc., said it was incorrectly named “Sargent’s Nursery” in the complaint. Sargent’s opposed the default-judgment motions and moved for an extension of time to answer. The opinion states that defense counsel contracted the virus that causes COVID-19 while she was handling another trial around the time Sargent’s was served and contacted for representation. Sargent’s stated that it was ready to file an answer and affirmative defenses.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that Sargent’s was technically in default because it missed the deadline. However, the clerk had not entered default, and the court reviewed the motions on the assumption that default could have been entered in response to Throndson’s first motion.

The court explained that default judgments are disfavored and that courts generally prefer deciding civil disputes on their merits. It found that Sargent’s failure was a marginal missed deadline rather than an intentional delay or disregard of procedural rules. The court also found good cause to decline to enter default or default judgment. In reaching that conclusion, it considered whether Sargent’s conduct was blameworthy, whether its proposed defenses might be valid, and whether excusing the missed deadline would prejudice Throndson.

The court found Sargent’s conduct was not particularly blameworthy, its proposed answer and defenses might present a valid defense, and the record did not suggest that allowing the case to continue would cause the loss of evidence, create discovery barriers, or create opportunities for fraud or collusion.

Disposition

1. Throndson’s motions for default judgment, ECF Nos. 4 and 7, were DENIED. 2. Sargent’s motion to extend the time to answer, ECF No. 15, was GRANTED. Sargent’s was ordered to file its answer and affirmative defenses as soon as practicable after receiving the order.

The court also separately referred Throndson to the Pro Se Project, which connects unrepresented parties with volunteer attorneys for litigation consultations.