BB Buggies, Inc. v. Leon, 2014 Miss. LEXIS 543

Background

In June 2011 a 14-year-old (Jean-ah Leon) was seriously injured operating an off-road buggy; her parents (the Leons) sued multiple defendants and ultimately filed suit in Mississippi on June 11, 2012, naming BB Buggies and Textron (the "Textron Parties").
The Leons served the original complaint and summons on the Textron Parties on July 16, 2012, and filed an amended complaint (adding gross negligence and punitive damages) on July 25, 2012, sending copies by certified mail and email but not issuing new summonses.
The Textron Parties did not answer; the Leons sought and obtained an entry of default and default judgment on August 23, 2012 (with damages to be set later).
The Textron Parties learned of the default within days, retained counsel, and moved to set aside the default judgment; the trial court denied relief and the Textron Parties appealed interlocutorily.
The Mississippi Supreme Court held the default judgment was not void on procedural grounds (service, Rule 55 notice, Rule 8 pleading), but that under the Rule 55(c)/60(b) three‑pronged test the judgment should be set aside because the Textron Parties had colorable defenses and the Leons would not be prejudiced by reopening.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Leons)	Defendant's Argument (Textron Parties)	Held
Was the amended complaint improperly served so the default judgment is void?	Service by mail/email of amended complaint was sufficient under Rule 5; no new summons required.	Amended complaint added new claims and no new summons was issued; Rule 4 service was required.	Held: Rule 5 applied because defendants were not in default when amended complaint was filed; service was sufficient and default not void on this ground.
Were the Textron Parties entitled to Rule 55(b) notice because they had "appeared"?	No — there was no clear intent to defend; their counsel’s limited phone/email did not constitute an appearance.	Counsel’s email/phone contact manifest intent to defend and required three days’ notice.	Held: No appearance for Rule 55(b) purposes; notice not required; default not void on this ground.
Did the amended complaint fail to state a claim under Rule 8?	Amended complaint gave sufficient factual notice of successor/product claims and other theories.	Allegations were conclusory re: successor liability and insufficient under Rule 8.	Held: Amended complaint satisfied the liberal notice pleading standard of Rule 8; default not void on this ground.
Should the default judgment be set aside under the Rule 55(c)/60(b) three‑prong test?	The Leons argued prejudice from delay and need for finality; lack of good cause warranted denial.	Textron Parties argued (1) limited excuse for default, (2) they have colorable defenses (no manufacture, successor-liability issues, misuse), and (3) reopening would not prejudice Leons.	Held: Although no good cause, two prongs (colorable defense and lack of prejudice) favor Textron; trial court abused discretion by refusing to set aside default. Judgment vacated and case remanded.

Key Cases Cited

Fletcher v. Limeco Corp., 996 So.2d 773 (Miss. 2008) (standard for reviewing service and jurisdictional issues)
McCain v. Dauzat, 791 So.2d 839 (Miss. 2001) (default judgment void if lack of proper service; court must set aside)
American States Ins. Co. v. Rogillio, 10 So.3d 463 (Miss. 2009) (three‑prong balancing test and relaxed Rule 55 appearance standards)
Guaranty Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Pittman, 501 So.2d 377 (Miss. 1987) (default judgments disfavored; guidance on vacating defaults)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Green, 794 So.2d 170 (Miss. 2001) (colorable‑defense prong often decisive)
Rush v. North Am. Van Lines, 608 So.2d 1205 (Miss. 1992) (discussion of required showing for meritorious defense — later clarified)
Wheat v. Eakin, 491 So.2d 523 (Miss. 1986) (indicia of intent to defend entitles party to Rule 55(b) notice)
Kumar v. Loper, 80 So.3d 808 (Miss. 2012) (limits on what informal contacts constitute an appearance for Rule 55)