Kagley v. Future Motion, Inc.

W.D. North Carolina

Kagley v. Future Motion, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedAugust 5, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-00324

StatusUnknown

This text of Kagley v. Future Motion, Inc. (Kagley v. Future Motion, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kagley v. Future Motion, Inc., (W.D.N.C. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 1:23-cv-00324-MOC-WCM

DYLAN KAGLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) FUTURE MOTION, INC., ) ) Defendant. )

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Stipulation to Vacate Clerk’s Default. (Doc. No. 10). The Court “may set aside a clerk’s entry of default upon a showing of “good cause.” FED. R. CIV. P. 55(c). Rule 55(c) must be “liberally construed in order to provide relief from the onerous consequences of defaults and default judgments.” Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954 (4th Cir. 1987) (quoting Tolson v. Hodge, 411 F.2d 123, 130 (4th Cir. 1969)). “Any doubts about whether relief should be granted should be resolved in favor of setting aside the default so that the case may be heard on the merits.” Tolson, 411 F.2d at 130. The Court finds that the Parties have shown good cause to set aside the entry of default in this case. Therefore, the Parties’ Joint Stipulation will be granted. ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. Parties’ Joint Stipulation to Vacate Clerk’s Default (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED; 2. Defendant SHALL file a notice of potential tag-along to the Northern District of California for MDL-3087, In re: Future Motion, Inc. Products Liability Litigation 1 and shall have thirty (30) days to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint. SO ORDERED. Signed: August 5, 2024

Kee BLAND Lee Max O. Cogburn Jr United States District Judge Felgen

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 1:23-cv-00324-MOC-WCM

DYLAN KAGLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) FUTURE MOTION, INC., ) ) Defendant. )

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Stipulation to Vacate Clerk’s Default. (Doc. No. 10). The Court “may set aside a clerk’s entry of default upon a showing of “good cause.” FED. R. CIV. P. 55(c). Rule 55(c) must be “liberally construed in order to provide relief from the onerous consequences of defaults and default judgments.” Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954 (4th Cir. 1987) (quoting Tolson v. Hodge, 411 F.2d 123, 130 (4th Cir. 1969)). “Any doubts about whether relief should be granted should be resolved in favor of setting aside the default so that the case may be heard on the merits.” Tolson, 411 F.2d at 130. The Court finds that the Parties have shown good cause to set aside the entry of default in this case. Therefore, the Parties’ Joint Stipulation will be granted. ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. Parties’ Joint Stipulation to Vacate Clerk’s Default (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED; 2. Defendant SHALL file a notice of potential tag-along to the Northern District of California for MDL-3087, In re: Future Motion, Inc. Products Liability Litigation 1 and shall have thirty (30) days to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint. SO ORDERED. Signed: August 5, 2024

Kee BLAND Lee Max O. Cogburn Jr United States District Judge Felgen

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kagley v. Future Motion, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kagley-v-future-motion-inc-ncwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack