A.P. Moller - Maersk A/S, trading as Maersk Line v. Safewater Lines (I) Pvt., Ltd., 4:13-cv-01726

Maersk sued several defendants for costs (cleanup, freight, demurrage) after hydrochloric‑acid drums leaked in Houston; claimed negligence, breach of contract, and CERCLA contribution; damages sought exceeded $75,000.
Maersk settled and voluntarily dismissed Safewater Lines (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Safewater Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd. by Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (notice filed Feb 8, 2016). Maersk continued against Samrat Container Lines, Inc.
Samrat filed a crossclaim for indemnification against the two Safewater entities on Jan 25, 2016; those Safewater defendants were served but never filed any responsive pleadings to the crossclaim.
Samrat moved for entry of default and default judgment against the Safewater defendants; the court entered default and then entered default judgment in December 2016.
Safewater moved (Jan 2017) to vacate the default judgment under Rule 60(b), arguing they had believed Maersk’s settlement and dismissal rendered the crossclaim moot and that they have meritorious defenses (billing/consignee/contract issues); Samrat opposed and argued willful default and prejudice.
The district court denied Safewater’s motion to vacate, finding their failure to respond was deliberate, unexplained, and not excused by the settlement; the court emphasized procedural requirements to oppose default motions and the Safewater defendants’ prolonged non‑participation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default judgment should be vacated under Rule 60(b)/55(c)	Default should stand because defendants failed to answer and have no excuse	Vacatur warranted: belief that Maersk’s dismissal mooted the crossclaim; meritorious defenses; no prejudice to Samrat	Denied — vacatur refused; court finds defendants’ nonresponse willful and unexplained
Whether defendants’ failure to answer was willful (affecting good‑cause)	N/A (focus on procedural default)	Their conduct was excusable because they reasonably expected dismissal after settlement	Court finds conduct is deliberate (not excused); willfulness supports denying vacatur
Whether defendants presented a meritorious defense to the crossclaim	Default precludes showing defenses; Samrat argues Safewater lacks meritorious defense because of contractual role	Safewater points to privity/contract issues and argues Samrat as consignee may be liable; contends defenses exist	Court finds Safewater’s asserted defenses inadequately explained and outweighed by their failure to participate; meritorious defense not credited to overcome willfulness
Whether Samrat would be prejudiced by vacatur	Vacatur would prejudice Samrat (continuing fees; exposure)	Little to no prejudice; vacatur would simply require Samrat to prove its crossclaim on the merits	Court finds prejudice claim insufficient to overcome defendants’ willful default; prejudice to plaintiff limited to proving case, so not dispositive

In re OCA, Inc., 551 F.3d 359 (5th Cir.) (Rule 60(b) relief assessed under good‑cause framework)
Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290 (5th Cir.) (willful default doctrine; culpability can be dispositive)
In re Dierschke, 975 F.2d 181 (5th Cir.) (default as admission of well‑pleaded allegations; willfulness ends inquiry)
Rogers v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 167 F.3d 933 (5th Cir.) (factors for setting aside default judgments; discretion and prejudice/merit considerations)
McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, 511 U.S. 202 (U.S.) (proportionate‑share rule in maritime torts; effect of settling defendant)
Edward H. Bohlin, Inc. v. The Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350 (5th Cir.) (Rule 55 entry of default standards)