Acosta v. DT & C Global Management, LLC, 874 F.3d 557

DT & C Global Management, a Chicago ground-transportation company, and owners John Jansen and William Lynch were sued for wage-payment and overtime violations under the FLSA and Illinois wage laws by former drivers and by the Secretary of Labor.
In both cases defendants failed to respond to discovery; counsel moved to withdraw after claiming inability to reach the defendants, and the courts ordered appearances that Jansen did not attend.
District courts struck answers and entered defaults; default judgments were entered in November 2015 (employees’ case) and thereafter in the Department of Labor action.
Eleven months after the judgments, the defendants moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) to vacate, citing lack of notice (business closure, move to Indiana, mail/email problems) and Jansen’s poor health as excuses for inattention.
District courts denied the Rule 60(b) motions, finding no good cause for the defaults, an unreasonable delay in seeking relief after notice, and no meritorious defenses asserted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b)(1) relief is warranted to set aside default judgments	Defaults should stand; plaintiffs sought enforcement of judgments	Jansen and Lynch: default excusable due to lack of notice and Jansen’s poor health; acted promptly after learning	Denied—no good cause, delay was not reasonably quick, and no meritorious defense shown
Whether a party’s health can excuse inattention to litigation	Plaintiffs: health unrelated; litigation rules must be followed	Defendants: Jansen’s surgeries, meds, hospitalization impaired his ability to monitor case	Rejected—health events were remote or undocumented and did not explain prolonged inattention
Whether moving and mail/email problems excuse failure to monitor docket	Plaintiffs: parties must notify court of address changes	Defendants: move and mail/email forwarding prevented receipt of notices	Rejected—duty to update court and check docket; simple steps would have revealed defaults
Whether defendants presented a meritorious defense sufficient to vacate default	Plaintiffs: no adequate defense shown	Defendants: claimed good-faith defense and disputed amounts/credits	Rejected—assertions were conclusory and undeveloped; insufficient to show meritorious defense

Wehrs v. Wells, 688 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2012) (elements for Rule 60(b)(1) relief: good cause, prompt action, meritorious defense)
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (clients are bound by their attorneys’ actions and omissions)
Moje v. Fed. Hockey League, LLC, 792 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2015) (party’s duty to monitor counsel and take basic steps to protect rights)
Cent. Ill. Carpenters Health & Welfare Tr. Fund v. Con-Tech Carpentry, LLC, 806 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for denial of Rule 60(b) motion is abuse of discretion)
Jones v. Phipps, 39 F.3d 158 (7th Cir. 1994) (delay of five weeks after knowledge of judgment can be unreasonable for Rule 60(b) purposes)
C.K.S. Eng’rs, Inc. v. White Mountain Gypsum Co., 726 F.2d 1202 (7th Cir. 1984) (two-month delay before moving to vacate default judgment may be untimely)
Parker v. Scheck Mech. Corp., 772 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2014) (a meritorious defense must be more than bare legal conclusions)
Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2005) (party must notify court of address change to avoid being bound by missed notices)
Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (same: duty to update court and avoid relying on postal issues for excuse)