Federal Election Commission v. LatPAC

Background

The Federal Election Commission sued LatPAC, a registered political committee, and Chalin A. Askew in his official capacity as LatPAC’s treasurer. The Commission alleged violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Askew waived service for himself and LatPAC. He later filed an answer on behalf of both defendants, but the filing did not correspond to the complaint and addressed only 24 of the complaint’s 45 paragraphs. Askew appeared without a lawyer. LatPAC never appeared through counsel, and the court stated that an artificial entity cannot represent itself in federal court.

The court ordered LatPAC to obtain counsel by December 15, 2021, warning that a default could be entered if it did not do so. The court also ordered Askew to file a new responsive pleading by that date and reminded him that failing to follow court orders or attend future conferences could lead to sanctions, including a recommendation that a default judgment be entered against him. LatPAC did not obtain counsel. Askew did not file a new responsive pleading and did not attend the November 12, 2021, or January 4, 2022, telephone conferences.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) provides for entry of a default when a party against whom relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend the action. The opinion explains that a corporation or other artificial entity must appear in federal court through licensed counsel. It also explains that Rule 55 applies even when a defendant has filed an answer if the defendant otherwise fails to defend the case.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that LatPAC’s failure to appear through counsel by the deadline constituted a failure to otherwise defend the action. It therefore determined that a default should be entered against LatPAC under Rule 55(a).

The court separately concluded that Askew’s answer was defective, that he failed to attend two scheduled conferences, and that he failed to file the new responsive pleading ordered by the court. Based on those failures, the court determined that a default should be entered against Askew under Rule 55(a).

Disposition

The court requested that the clerk enter a default against LatPAC and Askew under Rule 55(a). The opinion stated that, after the defaults were entered, the court would set a schedule for the Commission to file a motion for a default judgment concerning the relief it sought. This order did not itself enter a default judgment or decide the merits of the Commission’s allegations.