299 F.R.D. 56
W.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Pro se Shi'ite Muslim inmates at Elmira Correctional Facility sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging religious discrimination; complaint filed February 27, 2013.
- Defendants acknowledged service and were ordered to answer by July 16, 2013 but did not file a timely answer; settlement discussions were ongoing.
- Court denied an informal extension request and ordered the Clerk to enter default; Clerk entered default on November 15, 2013.
- Defendants moved the same day to vacate the entry of default (filed under Rule 60 but treated as Rule 55(c)); Plaintiffs opposed; defendants later filed an untimely answer on March 26, 2014.
- Court evaluated the Rule 55(c) “good cause” factors (willfulness, meritorious defense, prejudice) and concluded default was excusable neglect, a meritorious defense existed, and Plaintiffs were not prejudiced.
- Court granted motion to vacate the Clerk’s Entry of Default, accepted the March 26, 2014 answer nunc pro tunc, and referred the case to a magistrate judge for pretrial matters (non-dispositive).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry of default should be set aside | Default should remain because defendants missed deadline and delay harms plaintiffs' ability to practice religion | Default should be vacated for good cause: neglect excusable, ongoing settlement efforts, prompt motion to vacate | Vacated: Court finds good cause under Rule 55(c) and grants relief |
| Whether defendants acted willfully in failing to answer | Plaintiffs imply willfulness from missed deadline and procedural errors | Defendants say failure was excusable neglect amid settlement discussions and not deliberate | Not willful; failure was neglectful but excusable |
| Whether defendants assert a meritorious defense | Plaintiffs contend meritorious defense lacking, citing prior Shi'ite-related rulings | Defendants identify substantive defenses and factual disputes (similarity of Sunni/Shi'ite practices; attendance records; prior Rahman decisions) | Meritorious defense shown (low Rule 55 threshold satisfied) |
| Whether plaintiffs would be prejudiced by vacating default | Delay in obtaining congregate prayer and other religious accommodations is prejudicial | Delay alone insufficient; no evidence of lost proof or increased discovery burden | No undue prejudice; vacatur permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Powerserve Int’l, Inc. v. Lavi, 239 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2001) (favors resolving disputes on the merits and disfavoring defaults)
- Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 1993) (default relief standards; doubts resolved for party seeking relief)
- Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274 (2d Cir. 1981) (Rule 55(c) treated leniently where party seeks to correct default)
- Pecarsky v. Galaxiworld.com, Ltd., 249 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2001) (three-factor test for vacating default: willfulness, meritorious defense, prejudice)
- Wagstaff-El v. Carlton Press Co., 913 F.2d 56 (2d Cir. 1990) (no single factor dispositive; meritorious defense can outweigh willfulness)
- SEC v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732 (2d Cir. 1998) (willfulness requires egregious, unexplained conduct)
- Am. Alliance Ins. Co. v. Eagle Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 1996) (willfulness standard and meritorious defense analysis)
- Dow Chem. Pac. Ltd. v. Rascator Maritime S.A., 782 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1986) (motions to set aside defaults must be made within a reasonable time)