Roberts v. KJ Win, Inc.
3:23-cv-02999
S.D. Miss.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Cheryl Roberts and William Chambers were injured in a six-car pileup allegedly caused by a KJ Win, Inc. (KJ Win) truck illegally parked on an interstate shoulder.
- Plaintiffs attempted multiple times to serve the complaint on KJ Win at addresses registered with California authorities; service failed until permitted by substituted service on the California Secretary of State.
- KJ Win failed to appear or answer the complaint; a final default judgment was entered after damages hearing.
- KJ Win's insurer, Prime, denied coverage prior to the suit, and only learned of the judgment months later.
- Counsel retained by Prime moved to set aside the default judgment, claiming lack of notice and excusable neglect, but were unable to contact their own client.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority of KJ Win's attorneys to appear | Questioned insurer's authority | Prime's policy allows defense representation | Authority established |
| Void judgment for lack of notice (Rule 60(b)(4)) | No appearance, so no notice required | No notice of default judgment | No notice required |
| Good cause to set aside default (Rule 60(b)(1)) | Default was willful; no good cause | Failure to respond not willful or excusable | Default was willful |
| Meritorious defense and prejudice | No defense shown; judgment stands | Suggests policy confusion, insurer responsible | Judgment stands; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Sindhi v. Raina, 905 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2018) (sets out the Fifth Circuit's policy disfavoring defaults, but recognizes necessity in some cases)
- In re OCA, Inc., 551 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2008) (liberal application of Rule 60(b) for default judgments, but higher standard for final judgments)
- Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assocs., Inc., 788 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2015) (lays out factors for Rule 60(b) relief, and willfulness ends inquiry)
- Maiz v. Virani, 311 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 2002) (authority to appear as attorney for a party must come from the client)
- Rogers v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins., 167 F.3d 933 (5th Cir. 1999) (defines what constitutes an appearance triggering Rule 55(b)(2) notice requirement)