Hurst v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.Hurst v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Tradebloc, Inc.‘s motion to vacate default judgment. Doc. 27. Plaintiff Cynthia Hurst has opposed the motion, and Tradebloc has replied in support. Upon review, the motion is GRANTED. Default judgment is hereby VACATED. Tradebloc shall respond to the complaint within ten days of this Order.
The seminal case in this circuit on
In Waifersong, Ltd. Inc. v. Classic Music Vending, 976 F.2d 290, 292 (6th Cir.1992), the Circuit made it clear that a party seeking to vacate a default judgment under
The courts have defined neglect to include late filings caused by mistake, inadvertence, or carelessness, as well as intervening circumstances beyond the party‘s control. Although
Rule 60(b)(1) does not define the term excusable neglect, the courts have determined the existence of excusable neglect by making an equitable determination based upon the following factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the other party, (2) the length of delay, (3) its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (4) the reason for the delay, and (5) whether the movant acted in good faith.
Burley v. Bosch Americas Corporation, 75 Fed.Appx. 329, 333 (6th Cir. August 27, 2003)(citations and quotations omitted).
The parties appear to largely agree on the acts that led to default judgment. Following service, counsel for Tradebloc contacted counsel for Hurst to determine whether settlement negotiations could occur before an answer was filed. This initial communication from defense counsel occurred on October 27, 2025. On November 5, 2025, defense counsel requested an extension of time to answer while settlement discussions occurred. Hurst‘s counsel agreed to an initial extension. On November 6, 2025, Hurst sent her demand to defense counsel. On November 13, 2025, defense counsel requested that the offer remain open until December 5, 2025. Hurst‘s counsel agreed but indicated that it was
The Court finds that Tradebloc‘s counsel satisfies both the excusable neglect and mistake standard. The only prejudice to Hurst will be the requirement to litigate her claim. The delay was minimal given counsel‘s mistaken belief that negotiations were still ongoing. There will be no impact on judicial proceedings beyond litigating Hurst‘s claim on the merits. Finally, it is clear from the parties’ filings that defense counsel mistakenly believed that Tradebloc‘s time to answer was extended while negotiations were ongoing. While that belief may have been mistaken given the parties’ communication, it was not so egregiously mistaken to warrant a default judgment for over $180,000.
Finally, the Court agrees that Tradebloc has set forth the basis for a meritorious defense. A claim is meritorious if there is “some possibility” that the lawsuit‘s outcome would be different. Burrell v. Henderson, 434 F.3d 826, 834 (6th Cir. 2006). Tradebloc has put forth argument that at least one of Hurst‘s claims is foreclosed by her own allegations. Given those assertions, there is undoubtedly “some possibility” that final judgment will differ from the default judgment.
As detailed above in the Court‘s excusable neglect review, there is no danger of
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Judge John R. Adams
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT