Goodman v. Bouzy

Background

Jason Goodman filed the complaint on December 19, 2021. Christopher Ellis Bouzy and Bot Sentinel, Inc. were served on January 19, 2022. Goodman filed a motion for default judgment on November 20, 2022, and obtained a certificate of default from the Clerk of Court on November 30, 2022.

On November 23, 2022, defense counsel stated that counsel had recently been retained and that the defendants intended to file a motion to dismiss. The defendants’ counsel filed a notice of appearance on December 5, 2022. On December 8, the court directed the defendants to respond to the complaint by December 12, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 12.

Goodman opposed giving the defendants additional time and stated that doing so would be prejudicial, particularly because he was representing himself.

Legal standard

The court explained that default is an extreme and disfavored sanction. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), a court may set aside an entry of default for “good cause.” When deciding whether to set aside default, courts consider whether the default was willful, whether setting it aside would prejudice the plaintiff, and whether the defendants have a potentially valid defense.

Although the defendants did not file a formal Rule 55(c) motion, the court treated their letter opposing Goodman’s motion for default judgment as a motion to set aside the entry of default.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Goodman would not be prejudiced by setting aside the default. It stated that Goodman relied only on his status as a self-represented plaintiff and noted that he was a frequent litigant. The court also noted that Goodman waited before seeking default judgment and that delay alone does not establish prejudice.

The court further found that the defendants had made a sufficient showing that they had meritorious defenses to Goodman’s claims. However, the defendants had not explained their approximately ten-month delay in responding to the complaint. Without that explanation, the court could not determine whether the default was willful.

Order

The court ordered the defendants to file, by January 3, 2023, a letter explaining the reason for their default. Goodman could file a letter opposing the motion to set aside default by the same date. The court held in abeyance its decision on the defendants’ motion to set aside the entry of default. It also held in abeyance the defendants’ motion to dismiss until the court decided the default issue. The opinion does not finally grant or deny either motion.