United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

Uniq Branch Office Mexico, S.A. de 

C.V., and Jacobo Helfon Daniel, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Steel Media Group, LLC, and others, 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 22-23876-Civ-Scola 

Order Granting Motion to Set Aside Default 

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Steel Media Group, LLC 

(“Steel Media”) and Luis Fernando Rodriguez Mejia’s (“Mr. Rodriguez,” and 

collectively, the “Steel Media Defendants”) motion to set aside default. (Mot., ECF 

No. 47.) The Plaintiffs have responded in opposition. (Resp., ECF No. 52.) Having 

reviewed the briefing, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court 

grants the motion. (ECF No. 47.) 

The Court finds that the Steel Media Defendants have established good 

cause to set aside their default. The Plaintiffs argue that the Steel Media 

Defendants’ default was willful, that they will be prejudiced by setting aside the 

default, and the Steel Media Defendants do not provide meritorious defenses. 

(Resp. at 4-12.) The Steel Media Defendants meet each requirement, however. 

“It is the general rule that default judgments are ordinarily disfavored 

because cases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably 

possible.” Creative Tile Marketing, Inc. v. SICIS Intern., 922 F. Supp. 1534, 1536 

(S.D. Fla. 1996) (Moore, J.). A court may set aside a clerk's default for good cause 

shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c); see also Compania Interamericana Export-Import, S.A. 

v. Compania Dominicana de Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948, 951 (11th Cir. 1996). “‘Good 

cause’ is a mutable standard, varying from situation to situation. It is also a 

liberal one—but not so elastic as to be devoid of substance.” Id. To determine 

whether good cause exists, the Court considers (1) whether the default was 

culpable or willful; (2) whether setting it aside would prejudice the adversary; and 

(3) whether the defaulting party presents a meritorious defense. Id. The Court 

finds that the Steel Media Defendants have made a sufficient showing of good 

cause. Griffin IT Media, Inc. v. Intelligentz Corp., No. 07-80535-CIV, 2008 WL 

162754, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2008) (Marra, J.) (observing that, where the 

defendant moved to set aside the Clerk’s entry of default less than three weeks 

after it was entered, this constituted a “reasonable time to respond and attempt 

to vacate the entry of default” and finding the default not to be willful). 

Case 1:22-cv-23876-RNS Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023 Page 1 of 3
The Court does not find the Steel Media Defendants’ default to be willful. 

See, e.g., Rensel v. Centra Tech, Inc., No. 17-24500-Civ, 2019 WL 7376756, at *1 

(S.D. Fla. Sept. 12, 2019) (Scola, J.) (denying motion to set aside default where 

defendant’s failure to timely respond was willful because “the Court has given [the 

defendant] ample opportunity to comply with the court’s orders” but the 

defendant failed to do so over a period of months). The Steel Media Defendants 

response to the service of the complaint—failing to address the complaint due to a 

deluge of demands and associated financial hardship—is doubtlessly negligent. 

(Mot. ¶¶ 14-16.) But it does not rise to the level of willfulness required to sustain 

the Steel Media Defendants’ default. Further, the Steel Media Defendants’ 

relatively prompt response to their default supports a finding that their default 

was not willful. 

The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs have not been prejudiced by the 

Steel Media Defendants’ default. The Plaintiffs claim that they are prejudiced by 

delays in the case and the expenses they have incurred in attempting to serve the 

Steel Media Defendants and draft and submit the motion for clerk’s default and 

related filings. (Resp. at 8-9.) To demonstrate prejudice, the Plaintiffs must “show 

that the delay would result in a loss of evidence, increased opportunities for 

fraud, or discovery difficulties.” Griffin IT Media, 2008 WL 162754, at *3. The 

Plaintiffs make a conclusory statement that “there is a possibility that this delay 

in discovery has resulted in the loss of evidence and depletion of Defendants [sic] 

assets to satisfy any judgment against them,” but the Plaintiffs offer no factual 

support or even argument to support this statement. (Resp. at 8.) Therefore, this 

statement alone is insufficient to justify maintaining the default judgment, and 

the Plaintiffs provide no other support for a finding of the kind of prejudice 

necessary to sustain default. Griffin IT Media, 2008 WL 162754, at *3. 

Finally, the Court finds that the Steel Media Defendants have sufficiently 

stated “a hint of a suggestion” that they have meritorious defenses. See, e.g., id.

(observing that, “with respect to a meritorious defense, ‘likelihood of success is 

not the measure’ . . . the movant need only provide ‘a hint of a suggestion’ that 

[its] case has merit.”) (cleaned up). Here, the Steel Media Defendants suggest that 

they have meritorious defenses. (Mot. ¶ 19 (listing proposed affirmative defenses).) 

While the Plaintiffs argue that the Steel Media Defendants do not provide a 

defense to the breach of contract claim (Resp. at 10), the Steel Media Defendants’ 

indemnification defense could apply to that claim (Mot. ¶ 19(5).) The Plaintiffs 

also dispute the legal application of the Steel Media Defendants’ proposed 

defenses, but this is not the appropriate forum for their arguments. While the 

Steel Media Defendants provide little more than a “hint of a suggestion” that they 

have meritorious defenses, and those defenses may not ultimately succeed on the 

merits, their assertions are sufficient to set aside their default under the liberal 

Case 1:22-cv-23876-RNS Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023 Page 2 of 3
standard applied. See, e.g., Griffin, 2008 WL 162754, at *3. The Court therefore 

grants the Steel Media Defendants’ motion to set aside default. 

For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Defendants Steel Media 

Group, LLC and Luis Fernando Rodriguez Mejia’s motion to set aside default. 

(ECF No. 47.) The Steel Media Defendants shall file their answer to the second 

amended complaint no later than April 17, 2023.

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on April 3, 2023.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-23876-RNS Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023 Page 3 of 3