sixty b motions that were brought there's two cases there consolidated and they followed very similar tracks in the trial court i would want to point out that there are different defendants in each case in in this case the defendants did appear retain counsel according to mr chance and paid tens of thousands of dollars to have their interest represented in the case the case did proceed on the pleading pleading stage and into some limited discovery of karen lee there was a breakdown in the relationship between counsel and the defendants as the affidavits set forth it was one of the defendants mr jansen who was responsible for trying to coordinate the litigation but that in the defendant made some mistakes and may have neglected the case in i guess the issues are why did that occur and does it excuse things to the extent that they could sure would be proper there were some significant health issues it was of numerous different health issues there was prior back surgery but that had been years before there was major heart surgery that this individual had latent twenty four thousand misses at twenty four and twenty fifteen case we're talking about individual was on numerous medications the ultimate fact in the ultimate point that's asserted and not contradict it is that these numerous health fact it's also one contradicted is that these the fenton's did not receive notice of the judgement until several months later they didn't receive the mailed notice because they were not residing in state the email had been transferred to a different a dress these are in the affidavits and when they did receive any kind of notice with respect to want to major address with the court card they change or address with the court the defendant's did not but the last known address that the council had provided of was no longer the address of the defendant at the time right so the defendant's fault it's not the court's fault or the plaint notice it wasn't received because they were inattentive to litigation and failed to keep the court prised in less than less maybe there's some excuse for that inattention and that mistake and that's what we're trying to put forth here well the court said there there wasn't that these medical excuses did not suffice that this was just an attentiveness to the litigation over an extended period of time if you get these here on a one if we look at each asserted reason and isolation i would agree that it's not sufficient but it wasn't just that kind of inattentiveness but he also tried it did in fact retain new counsel to investigate and appear in the case and handle his interests now that new council was not followed up with apparently but that new council passed the way and that again is on contradicted and that's not going to help you here if there was no communication with the court you know what he what he was doing to try to retain a new attorney many months after the fact that really matter if he wasn't communicating with the court but it wasn't after the fact it was before the judgements that he had retained the new council and then he found out several months after that the attorney had passed away again if it was just that i would say no i guess i guess what i'm trying to you know rely on here and i realize it's it's a difficult challenge but is the idea that these numerous things occurred with respect to this case and taken together although we would criticise some of the the different manners in which the defendants did or did not  proceed there's a reason for this and again that there was no no no trial on the merits we're sensitive course to the fact that there does need to be rules that provide for the end to litigation  also you want there to be justice and in these cases they really didn't get litigated they didn't get negotiated and they were in the goshi a sham and so really of you know  e again with respect to fota fen and mention one of the other cases he was blameless because he was relying on the principle of the company to handle these things and he never got a notice he says in his thing they didn't get notice that there were judgments against them personally frankly until they met with myself and another attorney in the summer of the next year there and then it did take two or three months to get the motions on file but again there were reasons for that  if you look at the situation here so i don't condone lead against ignoring their responsibilities in litigation but different litigants have different ways of going about it and perhaps it please the court i'm sara conrad representing the secretary of labor the district court in this case acted within its considerable discretion when it denied the defendant in our lawyers motion to vacate the default judgment one they didn't have good cause for the default two they didn't act quickly to remedy the default and three they didn't present america for his defense to the claims against them and if the defendants had failed any one of these three requirements the district court could have denied their motion but the employers in this case actually failed all three i want to turn to the issues that opposing counsel raised he focused on the fact that the employers have claimed that they didn't receive notice as your honor noted that is because they didn't take reasonable steps to ensure that they continue to receive service by updating their address  port and this actually sort of follows a pattern the department had had problems with the defendants prior to the entry of default judgment we didn't receive any documents in response to our discovery requests and had to end granted several extensions but ultimately had to file a motion to compel because the defendants were not responding to discover requests and then they twice failed to appear at a hearing where the court had ordered them so they  were inattentive to the case while they were participating and then once they sort of disappeared from the case they were inattentive for a very long time period it was ten and a half months in fact between when the district court correctly recognized mr jackson's ill health as kind of conveniently most together in a non chronological order in the defendant's motions several of the health problems occurred long before the law suit was filed and mr janssen by his own account was at least somewhat aware of the litigation we know that he was trying to get mr gorman to represent him during the summer and fall and then we know that in january they became he became or in early two thousand and sixteen he was aware that the default judgment had entered against him and we know that he was able to retain current coun in the summer so he was aware of the case but he was simply non responsive and fairly inattentive to it and lastly i just wanted to note that in the department's case the department put out a press  release in january both individual defendants mr janssen and mr lynch have admitted that they knew that they saw this press release so regardless of whether they received service or not they had actual knowledge of of default judgment against the company that they owned they were both part owners of this case and they have admitted that they found out that a company that they owned was liable for significant damages and they did nothing  they didn't pick up the phone to call the man they thought was negotiating with the department they didn't call the court of the department of labor to find out more they did nothing and then that continued on for another nine months or so before they finally filed the motion to fake it the default so there was certainly not quick action they have not presented good cause and to the extent that the employers presented some some kind of a defense it was a single conclu my name my name is arnold landis i represent the plaintiffs epa lees in the four zero seven seven case which is the case pending before judge shater in the even though the case that the judge sha case is a separate case from the one that counsel just addressed which is before judge kendall the facts relevant to this appeal are really very very similar and really i can really echo and with and not be labor but reiterate the points made by my immediate predecessor as to why the judgment should be affirmed and as counsel just stated that the motion was properly did to vacate was properly denied because the defendants failed to show good cause for the default they were dilatory throughout the case there were failures to answer disk discovery and motions to compel secondly they failed to act quickly to correct the default once they became aware of it and third any is there anything in the record about what actions the defendants former lawyers talk in trying to reach their clients i mean i realize that you know of course defendants are responsible for the actions of their lawyers but in this day of google it seems hard to believe that anyone is on find a full or unreachable may i ask you to repeat the question what was your question your honor is there anything in the record about what actions the defendants former lawyers talk in trying to reach their client when he had counsel originally in the case and then the counsel withdrew and there was some communication with another attorney who never filed an appearance and then counsel who is on the appeal representing the appellant's has just been involved in the motion to vacate and in and in in the appellate proceedings so the other point i'd like to a make the court aware of is i've been involved in the post judgment enforcement proceedings as to this the judgment entered against the defendants and judge shater a great to my motion for rid of attachment as to the defendant mr jansen for his failure to comply with the post judgment and force the proceedings but he didn't respond to a citation or rule to show cause we saw to rid of attachment which judge shater a granted so that's the posture of this case he's not cooperating in any way with the enforcement process that  write how many times you have two minutes to get right and very briefly just to quickly address two or three of the last points i was never retained to represent the defendant post judgment forcemeat proceedings but i don't think it's relevant to these motions because it wasn't considered and we don't know what's going on the defendant there but i would say there is you know judge drover justice written or asked if there's anything in the record of what council did the initial counsel that the that the defendants had did file pursuant to the rules of motion to withdraw it was filed pursuant to the rules i don't criticize it except to say that the last known address is that were left were not affected last known address the business address since were relevant because the defendant was not in business anymore and the defendants did not reside at those business addresses and had moved i don't really know who's exactly at fault on that but i do know it's on contradict these defendants did not get notice of not only the judgement but to your point judge they didn't get a notice of the motion to withdraw so i don't know how they're less culpable in not filing the new address with the court if they didn't even know it had been withdrawn if they thought your if i heard where i got or in the whole your clients with the principals if they choose to it's in the record it says the corporate defendant had the money judgment now even non lawyers are familiar with the idea that that that individuals are not liable for corporate judgments  and it's not that unreasonable for them to have thought that maybe this wouldn't impact them so we don't know that they did come in the book but we do know from the motion to vacate that they only receive notice of the corporate debt and thought it didn't apply to them so and that's that's not that reason so i realize that there's a lot of things if you look at them one at a time to go against these movements but i think if you look at the whole thing justice would be