Reagan Marine Construction, LLC v. Victor Costa et al., 2024-0344-Appeal.

Reagan Marine Construction sued Victor Costa and Costa Companies for breach-related claims after a marina subcontract allegedly went unpaid and was terminated following delay disputes. 1
The Superior Court compelled discovery, stayed discovery to allow new counsel, and later gave defendants more time to comply and retain counsel. 2
After defendants failed to comply with discovery orders and failed to retain counsel, Reagan obtained a conditional order of default. 3
At hearings, Costa raised for the first time a notice objection, and the trial justice told him to seek relief by filing a Rule 60 motion. 4
Defendants never filed a Rule 60 motion, and the court later entered default judgment for Reagan in the amount of $716,001.83. 5
The defendants appealed, challenging service of the default-related motions and the cash-bond condition imposed on remand. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the notice/service objection preserved for appeal? 7	Reagan says defendants never filed a Rule 60 motion, so the issue was waived.	Costa says service was defective because papers were not sent to the registered agent.	Not preserved; defendants had to raise notice by Rule 60 motion first. 8
Did the Superior Court abuse discretion in entering default judgment? 9	Reagan says defendants repeatedly ignored discovery orders and lacked counsel.	Costa says default was improper because notice of the motions was defective.	No abuse of discretion; defendants disobeyed multiple orders and got ample opportunity to comply. 10
Did the cash-bond condition on remand violate due process? 11	Reagan says Rule 2 authorized the bond to protect its judgment during remand.	Costa says due process required an unconditional remand to file Rule 60.	No due-process violation; the bond condition was authorized. 12

Ferris v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, 263 A.3d 1247 (R.I. 2021) (default rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion or legal error 13)
Reyes v. Providence Place Group, L.L.C., 853 A.2d 1242 (R.I. 2004) (default rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion or legal error 14)
Clark v. Dubuc, 486 A.2d 603 (R.I. 1985) (motion to vacate default is committed to trial justice's discretion 15)
Marchionte v. Jaramillo, 182 A.3d 1146 (R.I. 2018) (appellant bears burden to show abuse of discretion or legal error 16)
Patel v. Patel, 252 A.3d 1221 (R.I. 2021) (raise-or-waive rule bars unpreserved appellate issues 17)
State v. Parrillo, 228 A.3d 613 (R.I. 2020) (specific objection required to preserve an issue 18)
State v. Pona, 66 A.3d 454 (R.I. 2013) (specific objection preserves error for review 19)
State v. Ricker, 252 A.3d 721 (R.I. 2021) (new appellate theories not raised below are waived 20)
E.H. Turf Supply Co., Inc. v. Tavares, 337 A.3d 1019 (R.I. 2025) (pro se litigants remain bound by procedural rules 21)
Oliveira v. Levesque, 294 A.3d 994 (R.I. 2023) (pro se litigants are not exempt from court rules 22)
Providence Gas Company v. Biltmore Hotel Operating Co., 376 A.2d 334 (R.I. 1977) (default is proper when the court gives every opportunity before using it 23)