Patrick v. Local 51, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO

Background

Rita Patrick sued Local 51, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and its president, Shonequa Johnson-Duggins, under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. Patrick alleged that Johnson-Duggins improperly suspended her from her elected shop steward position after Patrick raised concerns about alleged financial discrepancies and irregularities in the union’s bank accounts. Patrick also asserted a state-law breach-of-contract claim.

Patrick served the defendants on December 6, 2019. After they did not timely answer, the Clerk of Court entered certificates of default against each defendant on January 21, 2020. The defendants filed an answer that same day and later moved to vacate the defaults and obtain permission to file and serve that answer. The opinion also states that Patrick initially filed the case without a lawyer, but her counsel entered an appearance on December 23, 2019.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), a court may set aside an entry of default for good cause. The court considers whether the default was willful, whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, and whether setting aside the default would prejudice the opposing party. A defense is “meritorious” at this stage if the defendant presents facts that, if proven, could provide a complete defense; the defendant does not have to prove the defense will ultimately succeed.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the defendants’ failure to answer was not willful. Johnson-Duggins stated that the defendants had difficulty obtaining and funding outside counsel and ultimately received approval to retain counsel on January 16, 2020. Counsel filed the answer five days later. The court said the defendants should have known their response deadline, but concluded that their conduct amounted at most to carelessness or negligence rather than bad faith or deliberate conduct.

The court also found that the defendants had offered meritorious defenses. First, they argued that Patrick’s statements about union accounts and expenditures were false and therefore not protected by the federal labor law because the issues had already been addressed at union meetings. Second, they argued that Patrick was suspended for failing to perform shop steward responsibilities, rather than because of her expressive activity. Third, they argued that the suspension did not constitute discipline affecting Patrick’s rights as a union member under the relevant provisions of the federal law. The court emphasized that these defenses only had to clear a low threshold at this stage and did not decide whether they would ultimately prevail.

Finally, the court found no prejudice to Patrick from vacating the defaults. It noted that Patrick had not shown loss of evidence, increased difficulty with discovery, or a greater opportunity for fraud or collusion.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motion to vacate the certificates of default issued on January 21, 2020. The court also granted the defendants leave, retroactively, to file and serve their January 21 answer. The Clerk of Court was directed to vacate the entries of default and terminate the motion. The parties were directed to submit a case-management plan by June 5, 2020. The order addressed the defaults and late answer; it did not resolve the merits of Patrick’s underlying claims.