Mitsubishi HC Capital America, Inc. v. Aerospace Asset Trading, LLC
1:22-cv-20074
S.D. Fla.Mar 1, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Mitsubishi HC Capital America, Inc. filed suit in January 2022; Defendants Aerospace Asset Trading, LLC and Steven M. Polederos were served and responses were due February 22, 2022.
- Defendants retained counsel on February 9 and informally agreed with Plaintiff to extend the response deadline to March 8 but did not file a timely motion for extension or a responsive pleading.
- On February 23 the Court ordered the Clerk to enter default for failure to plead; Defendants filed an unopposed motion for extension within an hour but it was untimely and denied; the Clerk entered default.
- Defendants moved the next day to set aside the Clerk’s entry of default, attributing the missed deadline to a calendaring error and asserting excusable neglect; Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.
- The magistrate judge applied the Rule 55(c) good-cause factors (including culpability, prejudice, promptness) and found Defendants’ counsel’s calendaring error excusable, Defendants acted promptly, and Plaintiff would not be prejudiced.
- Recommendation: grant the Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s Default and vacate the Clerk’s entry of default.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Clerk’s entry of default should be set aside under Rule 55(c) | No objection; agrees default may be set aside and would not be prejudiced | Missed deadline due to counsel calendaring error excusable; acted promptly to cure; can defend the case | Recommended: set aside default for good cause |
| Whether the default was culpable/willful | N/A (no objection) | Failure was inadvertent, not intentional or reckless | Held not culpable or willful |
| Whether setting aside default would prejudice Plaintiff | Plaintiff: no prejudice; supports relief | N/A | Held no prejudice; case at early stage and plaintiff agrees |
| Whether Defendants acted promptly to correct default | N/A | Filed extension motion within an hour of Court order and motion to set aside next day | Held prompt action supports vacating default |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. United States, 734 F.2d 735 (11th Cir. 1984) (courts have considerable discretion to set aside defaults)
- Fla. Physician’s Ins. Co. v. Ehlers, 8 F.3d 780 (11th Cir. 1993) (defaults disfavored; strong policy to decide cases on the merits)
- Jones v. Harrell, 858 F.2d 667 (11th Cir. 1988) (moving party need only a minimal showing to vacate default)
- EEOC v. Mike Smith Pontiac GMC, Inc., 896 F.2d 524 (11th Cir. 1990) (good-cause standard for vacating default is less stringent than for vacating default judgment)
- Compania Interamericana Export-Import, S.A. v. Compania Dominicana de Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948 (11th Cir. 1996) (lists factors to consider in setting aside default)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (standards for de novo review of magistrate judge recommendations)
- Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 1989) (procedural rules governing objections to magistrate recommendations)