Anwer v. Federal Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: August 23, 2024
• Docket: 6:24-cv-01174
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

SAMNITA S. ANWER and MOHAMMAD B. ANWER,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-1174-PGB-EJK

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

ORDER This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion To Set Aside State Court’s Clerk’s Default (the “Motion”) (Doc. 12), filed July 30, 2024. Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be granted. Plaintiffs instituted this action in the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Orange County, Florida, on May 16, 2024. (Doc. 1-1 at 6.) Because Defendant failed to plead or otherwise defend the action in state court, Plaintiffs moved for entry of a clerk’s default. (Id. at 28-29.) A clerk’s default against Defendant was entered thereafter. (Id. at 30-31.) The case was removed to the U.S. District Court on June 26, 2024 (Doc. 1), and Defendant filed the present Motion on July 30, 2024. (Doc. 12.) A court may set aside the entry of a clerk's default for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). “Good cause” is a mutable standard that varies from situation to situation. Sobkowski v. Wyeth, Inc., No.5:04 CV 94-OC-10GRJ, 2004WL 3569703, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 4, 2004) (citing Compania Interamericana Export–Import, S.A. v. Compania Dominicana De Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948, 951 (11th Cir. 1996)). It is also a liberal

standard, “but not one so elastic as to be devoid of substance.” Sobkowski, 2004 WL 3569703, at *2. Factors for determining whether to set aside a clerk’s default include: “(1) whether the default is culpable or willful; (2) whether setting aside the default would

prejudice the adversary; and (3) whether the defaulting party presents a meritorious defense.” Bradley v. Accredited Roofing Techs., LLC, No. 8:14-cv-210-T-33TBM, 2014 WL 1572614, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2014) (citing Compania, 88 F.3d 948, 951 (11th Cir. 1996)). Other factors the Bradley court noted are: “(4) whether the public interest is implicated; (5) whether the defaulting party will experience significant financial loss;

and (6) whether the defaulting party acted promptly to correct the default.” Id. (citing Global Aerospace, Inc. v. Platinum Jet Mgmt., LLC, No. 09–cv–60756, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12700, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2010)). This Court finds that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by vacating the default because they are not opposed to the Motion. Whereas, Defendant would experience

significant financial loss if Defendant were to default since Plaintiffs seek damages exceeding fifty thousand dollars. (Doc. 1-1 at 5.) Moreover, Defendant acted promptly to correct the default by retaining counsel the day after Plaintiffs moved for entry of a Clerk’s default. (Doc. 12. at 1.) Finally, given that defaults are disfavored, the balance of consideration weighs in favor of vacating the default. Fla. Physician’s Ins. Co. v. Ehlers, 8 F.3d 780, 783 (11th Cir. 1993) (“[D]efaults are seen with disfavor because of the strong policy of determining cases on their merits.”). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside State Court’s Clerk’s Default (Doc. 12) is GRANTED. The clerk’s entry of default as to Federal Insurance Company (Doc. 1-1 at 30-31) is VACATED. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 23, 2024.

gM KIDD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE