Oguinn v. Poinsett County, Arkansas

E.D. Arkansas

Oguinn v. Poinsett County, Arkansas

DecidedSeptember 28, 2021

Docket3:21-cv-00159

StatusUnknown

This text of Oguinn v. Poinsett County, Arkansas (Oguinn v. Poinsett County, Arkansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oguinn v. Poinsett County, Arkansas, (E.D. Ark. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION MARY OGUINN PLAINTIFF V. 3:21-CV-00159-BRW POINSETT COUNTY, ARKANSAS DEFENDANT ORDER Pending are Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 5) and Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default (Doc. No. 7). According to the affidavit in the record, Defendant was served on August 10, 2021.1 On September 20, 2021, the Clerk of the Court entered a default as to Defendant.2 Defendant filed its Motion to Set Aside Default and Answer to the Complaint on September 27, 2021.3 “Entry of a default judgment . . . [is] committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Default judgments, however, are not favored by the law.”4 Here, Defendant was twenty-

seven days late.5 Defendant accepts blame for the delay and asserts that confusion in its office concerning a state court claim involving the same parties caused it to inadvertently miss the deadline. In a case where the answer was twelve days late, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit noted that “a marginal failure to comply with the time requirements” and “should be

1Doc. No. 2. 2Doc. No. 4. 3Doc. No. 7. 4United States v. Harre, 983 F.2d 128, 130 (8th Cir. 1993). 5Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(a) (“A defendant must serve an answer within 21 days after being servied with the summons and complaint . . . .”). distinguished from dismissals or other sanctions imposed for willful violations of court rules, contumacious conduct, or intentional delays.”6 The nominal period of delay in this case does not warrant the “drastic remedy” of a default judgment and is contrary to the public policy that cases should be tried on the merits.7 Additionally, I see no prejudice to Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of September, 2021.

Billy Roy Wilson_____________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6Harre, 983 F.2d at 130. 7American States Ins. Corp. v. Techincal Surfacing, Inc., 178 F.R.D. 518, 521 (D. Minn. 1998).

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION MARY OGUINN PLAINTIFF V. 3:21-CV-00159-BRW POINSETT COUNTY, ARKANSAS DEFENDANT ORDER Pending are Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 5) and Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default (Doc. No. 7). According to the affidavit in the record, Defendant was served on August 10, 2021.1 On September 20, 2021, the Clerk of the Court entered a default as to Defendant.2 Defendant filed its Motion to Set Aside Default and Answer to the Complaint on September 27, 2021.3 “Entry of a default judgment . . . [is] committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Default judgments, however, are not favored by the law.”4 Here, Defendant was twenty-

seven days late.5 Defendant accepts blame for the delay and asserts that confusion in its office concerning a state court claim involving the same parties caused it to inadvertently miss the deadline. In a case where the answer was twelve days late, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit noted that “a marginal failure to comply with the time requirements” and “should be

1Doc. No. 2. 2Doc. No. 4. 3Doc. No. 7. 4United States v. Harre, 983 F.2d 128, 130 (8th Cir. 1993). 5Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(a) (“A defendant must serve an answer within 21 days after being servied with the summons and complaint . . . .”). distinguished from dismissals or other sanctions imposed for willful violations of court rules, contumacious conduct, or intentional delays.”6 The nominal period of delay in this case does not warrant the “drastic remedy” of a default judgment and is contrary to the public policy that cases should be tried on the merits.7 Additionally, I see no prejudice to Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of September, 2021.

Billy Roy Wilson_____________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6Harre, 983 F.2d at 130. 7American States Ins. Corp. v. Techincal Surfacing, Inc., 178 F.R.D. 518, 521 (D. Minn. 1998).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Oguinn v. Poinsett County, Arkansas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oguinn-v-poinsett-county-arkansas-ared-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack