United States v. Rock Solid Construction Services, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedMay 17, 2021
Docket8:21-cv-00667
StatusUnknown

This text of United States v. Rock Solid Construction Services, LLC (United States v. Rock Solid Construction Services, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Rock Solid Construction Services, LLC, (M.D. Fla. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 8:21-cv-667-MSS-AAS

ROCK SOLID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant. ____________________________________/

ORDER Rock Solid Construction Services, LLC (Rock Solid) moves to vacate clerk’s entry of default. (Doc. 9). This request is unopposed. (Doc. 11). On March 19, 2021, the United States sued Rock Solid and the clerk issued the summons on March 22, 2021. (Docs. 1, 3). On March 26, 2021, a process server served Rock Solid with the complaint and summons. (Doc. 5). Rock Solid failed to timely respond to the complaint. The United States successfully moved for clerk’s default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). (Docs. 7, 8). After learning of the default, Rock Solid’s counsel appeared in this action. (Doc. 10). A court may set aside entry of a clerk’s default for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). “Good cause” under Rule 55(c) is a liberal standard. Sherrard v. 1 Macy’s Sys. and Tech., Inc., 724 F. App’x 736, 738 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation and citation omitted); see also Jones v. Harell, 858 F.2d 667, 668-69 (11th Cir. 1988) (affirming the district court’s holding that “a bare minimum showing” will justify relief under Rule 55(c)). If a party willfully defaults by displaying either an intentional or reckless disregard for the judicial proceedings, a court

may decline to set aside a clerk’s default. Burgos v. Valleycrest Golf Course Maintenance, No. 2:10-cv-194-FtM-29SPC, 2010 WL 2243805, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 4, 2010). Rock Solid’s failure to timely respond to the complaint is neither willful

nor constitutes a reckless disregard for the judicial process. Setting aside the default would not prejudice the United States. Good cause exists to set aside the clerk’s default against Rock Solid. Accordingly, Rock Solid’s motion to vacate clerk’s entry of default (Doc. GRANTED. Rock Solid must respond to the United States’ complaint by May 24, 2021. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on May 17, 2021. Aranda. Ayre Ah Sane AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Rock Solid Construction Services, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rock-solid-construction-services-llc-flmd-2021.