6:24-cv-00067
S.D. Ga.Aug 1, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Raymond Carnes filed an action for specific performance and declaratory judgment in state court, later removed to federal court.
- Defendant George Ray Wasden counterclaimed against Carnes, triggering a federal deadline to answer within 21 days.
- Carnes missed the deadline to answer the counterclaim by eight days and moved to set aside the default and file a late answer.
- Wasden opposed the motion, arguing Carnes failed to show good cause for setting aside the default.
- The court considered whether Carnes’ procedural error justified default or if good cause existed for relief under the Federal Rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default should be set aside for good cause after failure to timely answer a counterclaim | The delay was a good faith mistake arising from counsel’s unfamiliarity with federal rules; prompt corrective action was taken | No good cause shown; the deadline was clear and should have been observed | Motion to set aside the default is granted — good cause present |
| Whether Plaintiff’s failure to answer was willful or culpable | Delay was not willful, but a procedural error, quickly corrected | Carnes should be held responsible for noncompliance with clear rules | Delay not willful; weighs in favor of relief |
| Whether Wasden would be prejudiced by setting aside default | No meaningful prejudice to Defendant; only brief delay, no loss of evidence or increased fraud risk | Delay causes prejudice to Defendant’s case | No prejudice shown; this factor supports setting aside default |
| Whether Carnes presented a potentially meritorious defense | Asserted equitable defenses (e.g., laches, estoppel) in the proposed answer | Asserted defenses are bare, lack factual support, and insufficient | Lack of factual support not fatal; other factors favor finding good cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2014) (explains default under Rule 55 and the preference for resolution on the merits)
- Compania Interamericana Exp.-Imp., S.A. v. Compania Dominicana de Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948 (11th Cir. 1996) (discusses the three-prong good cause test for setting aside default)
- Moldwood Corp. v. Stutts, 410 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1969) (requires only a "hint of a suggestion" of a meritorious defense to satisfy that factor)