I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - I A- 0 1 8 7 6 - S CT BB BUGGI

ES , I NC. d / b / a BAD BOY BUGGI

ES AND TEXT

RON, I NC.
v. VI NCENT L EON, I

NDI VI DUALLY

, AS F ATHER AN D NE XT FR I EN D, AN D A SAD M

I NI S T RA TOR OF T HE ES T AT E O F HI

SM I NOR CHI

L D, J EA NAH L EON, AN

D M AN DI L EON D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 31/ 2012 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LI LL I E BL ACKM ON SANDERS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: ADA M S COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: LEAN N W . NEA LEY ROBER T A. M I LL ER W I LLI A M P. TH O M A S KYLE V. M I LL ER A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E S : JIM W A R R E N , III J . CH A D W I CK M A SK J AC OB T . E . S T UT Z M AN ANT HONY A
. HE I DE L BE RG NI CH OL AS J . GR E E NE NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 07/ 31/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. CO LEM AN, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . Th e i n s t a n t i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p e a l a r i s e s f r o m a d e f

a u l t j u d g me n t e n t e r e d a g a i n s tBB B uggi es , I nc. and Text r on, I nc. ( the “Textr on Par t i es ”)
. T he Text r on Par t i es cl ai m thatthe def aul tj udgm enti s voi d and s houl d be s etas i de beca us e they di d notr ece i ve pr opers ervi ce of the a mend e d c ompl a i nt , the y w e r e n otg i ve n no t i c e o f the d e f a ul tj ud gmen t , a nd t he

### Th e oth er parties are n ot invo lvedin th e interlo cuto ry ap peal. 1 

### 2 pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m agai nstthem
. A ddi t i onal l y, the Text r on Par t i es as s ertt hat the thr ee- pr onged bal anci ng t es tf orr el i ef f r om def aul tj udgm ent s r equi r es thati tbe s etas i de beca us e t hey have a col or abl e def ens e and the pl ai nt i f

f s w i l l notbe pr ej udi ced. W e hol d that th e d e fa u lt j u d g m e n t is n o t v o id , b u t itsh o u ld b e se t as id e u n d e r th e th re e -p ro n g e d tes t. F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory ¶2. I n J une 2011, f

our t een- year - ol d J ean- ah L eon w as s er i ous l y i nj ur ed w hi l e oper at i ng a B ad B oy B uggy, an of f
- r oad vehi cl e us ed f

orhunti ng and out doorr ecr eat i on. O ne yea r l at er , i n J une 2012, J ean- ah’ s pa r ent s , V i ncentand M andi L eon, f i l ed a pr oduct s l i abi l i ty and p erso nal i njury l aw sui ti n L ou i si ana aga i nstthe ow ner of the B ad B oy B ug gy , w ho w as a L oui s i ana r esi dent
. T hey al s o named t he ow ner ’ s i ns ur er , the Text r on Par t i es , and s ever al otherent i t i es and i ndi vi dual s . W i thi n a f ew days , the Leons di s m i s s ed al l part i es exce ptt he
v e h ic le o w n e r a n d h is in s u re r f ro m th e L o u is ia n a c a s e . ¶3 . O n J une 11 , 2 01 2, the Le on s f i l e d s ui ti n A da ms County, M i s s i s s i pp i , agai ns t t he T extr on Par t i es and the other s pr evi ous l y na m ed i n the L oui s i ana s ui t , s eeki ng da m ages of 1 “an a m ountnotyetdet erm i ned” butgr eat er than $10, 000, 000. T he Leons s erved the
c o m p lain t a n d s u m m o n se s o n th e T e x tro n P a rties th ro u g h th e ir re g iste re d a g e n ts in M i s s i s s i ppi o n Jul y 16 , 2012. T he Leons f i l ed an a m ended c om pl ai nton J ul y 25, 2012, addi ng cl ai m s f

orgr os s negl i gence and puni t i ve damages
. T he Leons di d noti s s ue new s um m ons es t o t he Text r on P art i es w i th the amended compl ai nt ; i ns t ead, they s entcopi es of th e am e n d e d co m p lain t t o the T e x tro n P a rties ’ h e a d q u a rte rs b y ce rtified m a il w ith

### 3

acc om panyi ng l ett er s addr es s ed “To W hom i tM ay C oncern. ” T he T extr on Par t i es ’ att or ney in th e L o u isia n a c a se a lso re q u e ste d a n d re c e iv e d a c o p y o f th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t b y e m a il. ¶4 . T h e T ex tro n P a rties ’ a n sw er w as d u e A u g u st 1 5 , 2 0 1 2 , thirty d ay s after they w ere s erved w i th the or i gi nal compl ai nt . T hey di d notf i l e an ans w ert o the or i gi nal compl ai ntor the am end ed co m plai nt. O n A ug ust23, 201 2, the L eon s soug ht a def aultj ud gm ent agai nst th e T e x tro n P a rties b a se d o n the am e n d e d co m p lain t. A n en try o f d e fa u lt a n d d e fa u lt j udgm entw er e ent er ed the s ame day. T he j udgm entpr ovi ded thatdamages w oul d be determ i ned ata subseq uen theari ng . F ou r days lat er, on A ug ust27 , the T extr on P art i es’ i ns ur ance carr i erl earned of the def aul tj udgm entand enga ged couns el f orthe T extr on Par t i es ; the Text r on Par t i es ’ att orney cont act ed the Leons’ att orney thatday. O n A ugus t31, 2012, t he T extr on P art i es fi l ed a m ot i on t o s etas i de the def aul tj udgm ent , a mot i on f orl eave t o ans w erthe or i gi nal compl ai nt , and a mot i on t o di s m i s s the amended compl ai ntor , i n t he al t ernat i ve, f

orl eave t o ans w erthe amended compl ai nt . A f ew days l at er , the Text r on Par t i es f i l ed a mot i on t o vaca t e ors etas i de the def aul tj udgm enta s s ert i ng thatthe Leons ha d f ai l ed to sta te a cla im u p o n w h ich relie f co u ld b e g ra n ted
. A fte r a h e a rin g , th e tri a l co u rt d e n ied a ll th e T e x tr o n P a rt ie s ’ m o tio n s . T h e T e x tr o n P a rt ie s fi le d th e in s ta n t in te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l. A n a ly sis ¶ 5 . T h e T e x tro n P a rties c laim th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d b y re fu sin g to se t a sid e th e d e fa u lt j udgm entagai ns tthem. T hey cl ai m t hatt he def aul tj udgm enti s voi d and s houl d be s etas i de beca us e: the amended compl ai ntw as notpr oper l y s erved; the T extr on Part i es w er e notgi ven not i ce of the entr y of

def aul t ; and the Leons f

ai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m agai ns tthe T extr on Par t i es i n the am end ed compl ai nt . A ddi t i onal l y, the Text r on Par t i es as s ertthatthe thr ee- pr onged

### 4

bal anci ng t es tunderM i s s i s s i ppi Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 55( c) and 60( b) r equi r es thatt he de f a ul tj ud gmen tb e s e ta s i de b e c a us e the Te xtr on Pa r t i e s h a ve a c ol or a bl e d e f ens e t o t he l aw s ui t , and the Leons f ai l ed t o s how they w oul d be pr ej udi ced by a l l ow i ng the Tex tr on P arti es to fi le an an sw er. ¶6. Suf

f i ci ency of s ervi ce of pr oces s i s a j ur i s di ct i onal i s s ue, w hi ch i s r evi ew ed de novo. Fle tc he rv. Lim eco Corp. , 996 So. 2d 773, 776 ( ¶ 8) ( M i s s . 2008)
. “A courtm us thave j ur i s di ct i on, pr opers ervi ce of pr oces s , i n orde rt o ent era def aul tj udgm entagai ns ta party.

. . . O therw ise, th e d efa u ltj u d g m en t is v o id.
. . . If a de fau ltj u d g m en t is v o id, the tri al co u rt has no di s cr et i on a nd musts etthe j udgm entas i de. ” McCain v. D auzat , 791 So. 2d 839, 842 ( ¶ 7) (M i s s . 2001) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. O nce the pr ocedur al i s s ues ar e s at i s f i ed, w e appl y an abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d of

re vi ew t o t he ci r cui tcour t ’ s deci s i on on a m ot i on t o s etas i de
a d e fa u lt j u d g m e n t. A m e ric a n S ta te s I n s . C o . v. R og ill

io , 10 S o. 3d 46 3, 46 7 (¶ 8) ( M i ss. 2009)
. W her e ther e i s r eas onabl e doubtas t o w hether“a def aul tj udgm entshoul d be vac at ed, th e d o u b t sh o u ld b e re so lv e d in fa v o r o f o p e n in g th e ju d g m e n t a n d h e a ri n g th e c a se o n its
m er i t s . ” I

d. ( quot i ng Mc Ca in , 7 9 1 S o . 2 d a t 8 4 3 ). I . W het her t he def

aul t j udgm ent agai nst the T extron P art i es i s voi d as a m a tter o f l a w d u e to im p ro p er ser v ice o f the a m en d ed co m p laint. ¶7 . T he Text r on Par t i es as s e r ttha tt he Leons f ai l ed t o compl y w i t h t he s er vi ce
r equi r ement s of R ule 4 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e bec aus e they di d not in c lu d e su m m o n se s w ith the am e n d e d co m p lain t an d d id n o t ad d re ss the c e rtified m a ili n g to
an y o ffi ce r or a g en t of th e T ex tr o n P arti es. T h e L eo n s co n ten d th a t n ew su m m o n ses w ere
n o t re q u ire d b e c a u se th e se rv ice p ro v isio n s o f R u le 5 (a ) a n d (b )(1 ) c o n tro l.

### 5

¶8. W hen a comp l ai nt i s f i l ed, the cl erk i s s ues a s um m ons , and both the compl ai ntand
su m m o n s m u st be serv ed o n the d efe n d an t i n ac co rda n ce w ith R u le 4. M iss. R . C iv. P. 4(a )- (d ). R u le 5 p e rta in s to su b se q u e n t p lea d in g s a n d p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: (a ) S e r v ic e : W h e n R e q u ir e d . E x c e p t a s o th e rw is e p ro v id e d in th e s e ru le s . .

. every pl eading subsequ ent t o the ori ginal com plai nt un l ess the co u rt otherw i s e or der s beca us e of num er ous d efendant s . . . s hal l be s erved upon ea ch o f the p arti es. N o serv ice n ee d b e m ad e o n p arti es in d efa u ltfor fail u re t o appea rexce ptthat pl eadi ngs as s ert i ng new oraddi t i onal cl ai m s f orr el i ef agai ns tthem shal l be s erved upon them i n the mannerpr ovi ded i n R ul e 4 f or s e rv ic e o f s u m m o n s . . . . ( b) ( 1) Servi ce: H ow M ade. . . . S e rv ice u p o n th e a tto rn e y o r u p o n a p a rty sh a ll b e m a d e b y d e liv e rin g a c o p y to h im ; or b y tran sm itt in g itto h im b y e lec tro n ic m e a n s; o r b y m a ili n g it t o h im a t h is la st k n o w n a d d re ss , o r if n o a d d re ss is know n, b y l e a vi ng i twi th the c l e r k of the c ou r t , o rb y tr a ns mi t t i ng i tt o t he cl erk by el ectr oni c means . D el i very of a copy w i thi n thi s rul e means : handi ng i tt o the att orney ort o the party; orl eavi ng i tathi s of f i ce w i th hi s cl erk or otherper s on i n char ge ther eof ; or , i f ther e i s no on one i n char ge [ s i c] , l eavi ng i ti n a c ons pi cuous pl ace ther ei n; or , i f the of f i ce i s cl os ed orthe per s on t o be s erved has no of

f i ce, l eavi ng i ta thi s dw el l i ng hous e orus ual pl ace of abode w ith s o m e p e rs o n o f

s u ita b le a g e a n d d is c re tio n th e n re s id in g th e re in
. . . . . Ser vi ce by mai l i s compl et e upon mai l i ng. M iss. R . C iv. P. 5(a ), (b)(1 ). A n am e n d ed co m p lai n t i s a p lead ing
. M iss. R . C iv. P. 7(a ); M iss . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (a ). B e c a u se it i s a p lea d in g “ su b se q u e n t to th e o rig in a l co m p lain t,” its
s ervi ce f al l s s quar el y w i thi n the s cope of R ul e 5 w i th one except i on – i f an amended
co m plai nt adds new or addit i on al cl ai m s and th e n ew clai m s are ag ains t a p arty w h o is in def aul t , then s ervi ce mustbe made underR ul e 4. I n the i ns t antcas e, the T extr on Par t i es
w er e noti n def

aul tw hen the Leo ns s erved thei ramended compl ai ntf i f t een da ys af

t ert he T extr on Par t i es w er e pr oper l y s erved w i th the s um m ons a nd or i gi nal c om pl ai nt , s o the one
exce pt i on t o R ul e 5( a) di d notappl y.

### 6

¶9. T he cir cuitcou rtcou l d ex erci se pers on al j uri sdi ct i on over the T extr on P art i es becau se the f i r s tcompl ai ntand s um m ons had bee n pr operl y served. “The exi s t ence of per s onal j ur i s di ct i on de pe nd s up on r e a s on a bl e not i ce t o the def endant
. ” Ma n s o u rv. Ch a r m ax I n d u s ., I nc. , 680 So. 2d 852, 854 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng N o b le v . N o b le , 50 2 S o. 2d 31 7, 32 0 (M i ss. 1987) )
. “The pr i nci pal purpose o f pr oces s i s t o gi ve t o the party t o w hom i ti s addr es s ed not i ce of the pr ocee di ng t o be de f ended. ” Mid-Sout

h Pi pe line Contr ac tors, I

nc . v. Ci ti

z e ns N at ’l B ank of Mer idian , 124 So. 2d 697, 700 ( M i s s . 1960)
. I ti s undi s put ed thatthe Leons pr oper l y s erved the Text r on Par t i es w i th a summ ons and t he or i gi nal compl ai nt , put t i ng t hem on noti ce o f t he cas e pr ocee di ng agai ns tthem. T he Leons f i l ed the amended compl ai nt cl os el y on the hee l s of

the or i gi nal i n the s ame ci vi l act i on, of w hi ch the Text r on Par t i es had
no t i ce via s ervi ce of the sum m on s and the ori ginal com plai nt. T he T extr on P art i es al so recei ved the am end ed com plai nt – they r ecei ved i tby m ai l ateach c om pan y’s headq uart ers , and i tw as emai l ed t o thei rLoui s i ana att orney, w ho f orw ar ded i tt o thei ri ns ur ance company. T h e re fo re , it is u n d is p u te d th a t th e T e x tr o n P a rt ie s h a d n o tic e o f t h e litig a tio n . ¶10. W hetherR ul e 4 orRul e 5 a ppl i es t o s ervi ce of a n a m ended compl ai nti s a n i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr es s i on i n M i s s i s s i ppi
. B eca us e ourrul es ar e gene r al l y m odel ed af t erthe Feder al R ules of C i vil P rocedu re, w e o ft en con si der f ederal authori ty w hen con strui ng si m i l ar rules
. G r ay v. G r ay , 562 So. 2d 79, 82 (M i ss. 1 99 0)
. H ow ever , w e ar e notbound by f eder al
a u th o ri ty w h e n in te rp re tin g o u r p ro c e d u ra l ru le s . Johnson v. B oyds ton , 605 S o. 2d 727, 731 (M i ss. 19 92 ) ( “W hil e t he reasoning of the federal cou rt s w i th respectt o sim il ar rules ’ pr ovi s i ons ar e gi ven due r egar d; thei rauthor i ty i s per s uas i ve onl y. ”) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T he T e x tr o n P a rties c ited tw o fe d e ra l ca se s in su p p o rt o f th e ir p o sitio n : Fluo rEng ine e rs a nd

### We point out that theFift

h Circ uit found the matt er

har ml es s, howeve r, bec aus e the 2 

### firs t de fe ndant

had l at er re -s er ved the s ec ond def

endant wi th a

summons and a

c opy of the cross claim. 7 Constr uctors, I

nc. v. Souther n P aci

f i c Trans por tati on Co. , 75 3 F. 2d44 4 ( 5th C i r . 1985) and A nun ciati on v. W

es t Capi tal Financi al

Servi ces Cor

p. , 97 F. 3d 1458 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( unpubl i s hed)
. B oth cas es di s cus s form erfe der al rul e 5( a) , w hi ch i s now R ul e 5( a) ( 2) of the Feder al R ul es of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e. T he l anguage i n Feder al R ul e 5( a)( 2) i s es s ent i al l y t he
s a me a s Rul e 5( a ) of

t he M i s s i s s i pp i Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e du r e . Fe de r a l Rul e 5( a ) ( 2) p ro v id e s: “ N o se rv ice is r e q u ir e d o n a p a rty w h o is in d e fa u lt fo r fa ili n g to a p p e a r. B u t a p lea d in g th a t as se rts a n e w c laim fo r re lief a g a in st s u c h a p a rty m u st b e se rv e d o n th a t p a rty
u n d er R u le 4.” F ed
. R . C iv. P. 5(a )(2). ¶11. I n Flu or E n gineers , one def endantf i l ed a cr os s - cl ai m a gai ns ta s econd de f endant and
a ttem p ted to e ffe c t se rv ice u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le 5 b y h a n d d e liv e rin g a c o p y o f th e c ro ss -c laim to th e s e c o n d d e fe n d a n t’ s a tto rn e y . Flu or E n gineers , 753 F. 2d at447. O n app eal , the
s econd de f

endantar gued that , beca us e i thad n otyetappea r ed i n the ac t i on, s ervi ce of t he
c ro ss -c laim w a s in su ffic ien t un les s a c c o m p a n ied b y a su m m o n s . I d. a t 4 4 9 . T h e F ifth C i r cui tC our tof

A ppeal s agr eed and hel d thatthe s econd de f endants houl d have be en s erved
w ith a s u m m o n s p u rs u a n t t o F e d e ra l R u le 4 . I d. N ot i ng thatFeder al R ul e 5( a) ( 2) r equi r es service und er Fede ral R ule 4 w hen “new or add i t i on al cl ai m s forrel i ef” ar e assert ed ag ai nst part i es i n def

aul tf orf ai l ur e t o a ppear , the Fi f

th C i r cui tf

ound that : “Part i es w ho have notyet appea r ed t o def

end an a ct i on o ug ht t o be af f or ded the s ame not i ce f ornew oraddi t i onal cl ai m s s uch as t he cr os s - cl ai m ass ert ed her e . . . . ” I d. E ven i f

the f act s i n Flu or E n gineers 2

### 8

w er e ana l ogous t o the s i tuat i on i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , the Fi f th C i r cui t ’ s hol di ng i n Fluor E n gineers does notj i be w i th t he pl ai n l anguage of M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s R ul e 5( a)
. T o appl y Fluor E n gineers a s th e T e x tro n P a rties as k u s to w o u ld eff e c tiv e ly am e n d R u le 5 to re q u ire R u le 4 se rv ice n o t o n ly u p o n d e fa u lti n g p a rties w h e n th e c o m p lain t a d d s n e w c laim s, b u t u p o n a ll nonappea r i ng part i es , r egar dl es s of w hetherthey al r eady ha ve bee n pr oper l y s erved. ¶12. I n A nun ciati on , th e p lain tiff filed a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t ag a in st th e d e fe n d a n t af t er th e d e fe n d a n t f

a ile d to r e s p o n d to th e o ri g in a l c o m p la in t. A nun ciati on , 97 F. 3d 1458, *1. T he amended compl ai ntw as al m os ti dent i cal t o the or i gi nal compl ai nt, b ut i tadded a new c a u s e o f a c tio n . I

d. a t*1
. The pl a i nt i f

f s e r ve d the de f

e nd a ntw i th the a mend e d c ompl a i nt b u t d id n o t s e rv e a n o th e r s u m m o n s . I d. A f t erthe def

endantf ai l ed t o r es pond t o the amended compl ai nt , the pl ai nt i f

f r eques t ed and w as gr ant ed a de f aul tj udgm enton the amended
c o m p la in t. I

d. O n appeal , t he N i nth C i r cui thel d t hatt he di s tr i ctcourtdi d nothave pe r s onal j ur i s di ct i on overthe def endantf orpurpos es of

the amended compl ai nt , beca us e the “combi nat i on of

R ul es 4 and 5 r equi r e a s um m ons t o be served t ogetherw i th a copy of t he amended compl ai nt . ” I d. at*2. T he s i tuat i on i n Anu nc ia ti o n i s preci s el y w hatR ul e 5
a p p l i e s t o –th e a me n d e d c o mp l a i n ti n c l u d e d a n e w c l a i m and th e d e fe n d a n t w a s in d e fa u lt beca us e the t i m e t o r es pond t o the or i gi nal compl ai nthad pas s ed. I ti s undi s put ed that , w hen the T extr on Part i es w er e s erved w i th the amended compl ai nt , they s t i l l had t i m e t o r es pond to th e o rig in a l co m p lain t; th u s, th e y w e re n o t in d e fa u lt. ¶13. M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s R ul e 5 cl ear l y r equi r es R ul e 4 s ervi ce of a s um m ons w i th a s ubs equent p lea d in g o n ly if (1 ) th e o p p o sin g p a rty is in d e fa u lt and ( 2) the s ubs equentpl eadi ng cont ai ns new cl ai m s agai ns tt he party i n def aul t . T he Leons’ amended compl ai nti ncl uded new

### 9

cl ai m s , butthe Text r on Par t i es w er e noti n def aul tw hen t he am ended compl ai ntw as f i l ed. T her ef or e, a ccor di ng t o the l anguage of Rul e 5, s ervi ce of

a new s um m ons underR ul e 4 w as notr equi r ed. W e hol d t hatt he Leons pr oper l y compl i ed w i th R ul e 5 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e w hen they f i l ed thei ramended compl ai nt , and the def aul tj udgm ent
a g a in st th e T e x tro n P a rties is n o t v o id fo r fa ilu re to p ro p e rly se rv e th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. I I . W het her t he T ext ron P art i es rec ei ved i nsuf f i ci ent not i ce of

t he ent ry o f d e f a u l t a g a i n s t t h e m. ¶14 . R ule 55(b) of

the M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of C i vil P rocedu re pr ov i des, “[ i ] f the p arty against
w ho m j ud gmen tb y de f a ul ti s s ou gh th a s a pp e a r e d i n the a c t i on , h e ( ori f a pp e a r i ng by
r epr es ent at i ve, hi s r epr es ent at i ve) s hal l be served w i th w r i t t en not i ce of the appl i cat i on f

or jud g m en t atleast th ree d ay s p ri o r t o the h ea ri n g o f su ch a p p li ca ti o n . ” M iss. R . C iv. P. 55 (b). T h e T ex tr o n P arti es c lai m that the d efa u ltjud g m en t sho u ld b e se t asi d e b ec au se th ey w ere
n o t p ro v id e d n o tice p rio r to th e d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t b e in g e n ter e d . T h e T e x tro n P a rties a d m it thatthey had notf

or m al l y appea r ed i n the case w hen t he amended compl ai ntw as f i l ed. H o w ev er, th e y c laim tha t th ey h ad ap p ea red for the p u rpo se o f R u le 55 ; th u s, they w ere e n title d to n o tic e . ¶15. O n A ugus t6, 2012, A ndy Bra un, a L oui s i ana a t t orney w ho w as r epr es ent i ng B ad B oy B uggi es i n the Loui s i ana c as e, cal l ed the Leons’ att orney, J i m W arr en. B r aun f ol l ow ed up
w i th an emai l t o W arr en, w hi ch r ead: T h a n k s fo r c a lli n g m e b a c k th is m o rn in g . A s d isc u ss e d , w e w e re a sk e d to r epr esentone orm or e of the “Bad B oy B uggi es , I nc. D ef endant s ” i n the law su it th a t w a s o rig in a lly filed a g a in s t t h e m a n d o th e rs in S h re v e p o rt, L oui s i ana. W e under s t and f r om K en M as cagni thatthe Shr eveports ui thas been a m ended t o t ake outthe “Bad B oy B uggi es , I nc. D ef endant s ” and that yo u h ave fi l ed a sep arat e sui tagainstthem i n M i ssi ssi pp i
. C an y o u p l ease

### 10

f orw ar d t o us a copy of

the l aw s ui tyou f

i l ed ( and any otheri nf

or m at i on you can pr ovi de us w i th atthi s t i m e) s o thatw e ca n geti ns truct i ons r egar di ng how to p ro c e e d ? T h a t w o u ld b e m o st h e lp fu l. T h e T e x tro n P a rties a rg u e th a t th e e m a il sh o w s a n in ten t to d e fe n d th e M iss iss ip p i law su it, and that i tsati sf

i es the rel axed app earance requir em ent of R ule 55. N atural l y, the L eon s’ pos i t i on i s t hat t he emai l w as nota s uf f i ci entappea r ance and thatnot i ce w as notr equi r ed. T he tr i al courtf

ound i n f avorof t he L eons on the i s s ue, concl udi ng thatthe Text r on Par t i es had no tapp eared forR ule 55(b) purposes. ¶16 . ForR ul e 55( b) purpos es , the appe arance requi rem ents are “r el axed consi der abl y, ” and a f or m al f i l i ng i n courtora courtappea r ance i s notre qui r ed f orone t o be ent i t l ed t o not i ce
u n d e rR u le 5 5 (b ). R og ill io , 1 0 S o . 3 d a t 4 7 5 (¶ 3 0 ); Hol m es v. Hol

m es , 6 28 So
. 2 d 1361, 1 3 6 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 3 ).

“ [T ]rad it ion all y , for a n ac ti o n to co n sti tute an ap p ea ran ce , o n e h ad to file document s i n or ac tual l y physi cal l y appearbef or e a c our t . ” Hol

m es v. Hol

m es , 62 8 S o . 2d 13 61 , 13 63 (M i ss. 19 93 ) ( ci t at i on s om i t t ed). H ow ever, “t ho se r equi r ement s have be en r el axed c ons i der abl y f orR ul e 55 purpos es . ” Hol m es , 628 So. 2d at1363 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. “O nce a party has m ade a n i ndi ci a of d e fe n se o r d e n ial o f th e a lleg a tio n s o f th e c o m p lain t su c h p a rty is e n tit led to a t le a s t th re e d a y s [’ ] w ri tte n n o tic e o f t h e a p p li c a ti o n fo r d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t.” W h e a t v. E a k in , 491 So. 2d 523, 525 ( M i s s . 1986)
. T hi s C our thas not ed that “i nf or m al cont act s betw een pa r t i es m ay cons t i tut e an appear ance . ” Hol m es , 6 2 8 S o . 2 d at 13 6 4 (cit ing v ariou s ca ses in w h ich w ri tt en d o cu m en ts th at w ere exchanged be tw een pa r t i es orf i l ed w i th the court , orconver s at i ons i ni t i at ed by def endant s ’ couns el , i ndi cat ed an i ntentt o def end the ac t i on and thus co n sti tuted an ap p ea ran ce ). R og ill io , 10 So. 3d at475 ( ¶ 30)
. “The f ocu s of t he i nqui ry i s on w hetherthe non- m ovant has m ani fes t ed t o the movanta cl eari nt entt o def end the s ui t . ” D

ynas teel Cor p. v. A z tec I ndus. , I nc. , 6 1 1 S o . 2 d 9 7 7 , 9 8 1 (M is s . 1 9 9 2 ). See a lso Hol m es , 628 So. 2d at1362- 65 ( def endanthad appe ar ed f

orR ul e 55( b) purpos es w her e couns el had exc hanged l ett er s that

### 11

sh o w e d d e fe n d a n t in ten d e d to d e fe n d ); Chass ani ol v. B ank of

K il m i chael , 626 So. 2d 127, 129- 32 ( M i s s . 1993) ( def endanthad appear ed w her e he f i l ed an a ns w ert o the or i gi nal
c o m p lain t b u t n o t th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t); W h e a t v. E a k in , 49 1 S o. 2d 52 3, 52 4-26 (M i ss. 1986) ( pr o s e def

endant ’ s ans w er , al though the f or m and l anguage w er e l es s formal t han
c u sto m a ry , inc lu d e d a g e n e ra l d e n ial o f th e c laim s a g a in st h im , a n d h e w a s e n tit led to R u le 5 5 (b ) n o tice ); Tu c k e rv . W illia ms , 7 So. 3d 961, 967- 68 ( ¶¶ 23- 24) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2009) ( corr es pondence betw een att orneys i n w hi ch def endant ’ s att orney s ai d def endant s i nt ended t o f i l e a count er cl ai m w as “ obvi ous l y a s t at ementi ndi cat i ve of i nt entt o def

end a c l ai m , ” and d e fe n d a n ts w e re e n title d to R u le 5 5 (b ) n o tic e ). B uts ee Kum arv. L oper , 80 So. 3d 808, 813- 14 ( M i s s . 2012) ( l ett ers entb efor e case w as f i l ed and one phone ca l l f r om f or m eratt or ney d id n o t con sti tute an ap p ea ran ce ); R og ill io , 10 So. 3d at475- 76 ( ¶¶ 30- 36 ) ( on e phone
conver s at i on betw een i ns ur ance company’ s cl ai m s speci al i s tand pl ai nt i f f’ s att orney, t he
c o n ten t of

w h ich w a s d isp u ted , d id n o t co n stitu te a n a p p e a ra n c e ); W ill ia m s v . K e lly , 872 So. 2d 783, 785- 86 ( ¶¶ 11- 14) ( M i s s . Ct
. A pp. 2004) ( def endanthad notappea r ed f orR ul e 55( b) purpos es even though he att ended a depos i t i on pur s uantt o a s ubpoena pr i ort o bei ng named
as a pa rty in the ca se, an d ev en tho u g h h is at torn ey att em p ted to co n tact plainti ff’ s att o rne y ). ¶17. I n R og ill

io , a c laim s sp e c ialist fo r A m e ric a n S tate s In su ra n c e C o m p a n y , sp o k e w ith R o g illio ’s c o u n s e l b y p h o n e . R og ill io , 10 So. 3d at476 ( ¶ 35)
. A m er i can St at es cl ai m ed that i t s cl ai m s speci al i st“cl ear l y advi s ed R ogi l l i o’ s att orney thataf t erR ogi l l i o had s erved A m eri can S t at es, A m eri can S t at es w ou l d en t er an app earance, defend this m at t er, and con t est
cover age. ” I

d. R ogi l l i o admi t t ed thatthe conve r s at i on t ook pl ace butdi s puted t he exa ct cont entof

the conve r s at i on, cl ai m i ng thatA m er i can St at es di d notunequi vocal l y expr es s an

### 12

in te n t to d e fe n d
. I

d. A ft er r evi ew i ng pr ece dentcas es i n w hi ch the C our thad cons i der ed
w hatcons t i tut ed an appear ance f orR ul e 55( b) purpos es , the C our thel d: B as ed on t hi s C our t ’ s pri orcas el aw , w e f i nd t hatA m er i can St at es di d notent er an appe ar ance i n t he ac t i on w hen i t s cl ai m s spec i al i s tspoke ove rthe t el ephone w ith R o g il li o ’s att o rne y . A lth o u g h an a p p ea ran ce n ee d n o t be a form al en try of app e a r a nc e ora ph ys i c a l pr e s e nc e i n c ou r t , i n the i l l us tr a t i ve cas es s um m ar i zed a bove, the def endant s ei ther1) s erved ors enta documentt o the pl ai nt i f f i ndi cat i ng i n w r i t i ng the def endant ’ s i nt entt o def

end, 2) fi l ed a documentw i th the courti ndi cat i ng i n w r i t i ng the def endant ’ s i nt entt o def

end, o r 3 ) h a d c o u n se l co m m u n ica te to o p p o sin g co u n se l th e d e fe n d a n t’s in ten t to def end. H er e, ther e i s no evi dence of A m er i can St at es i nf

or m i ng R ogi l l i o or the courti n w r i t i ng orthr ough c ouns el of i t s i nt entt o def

end the s ui t . A l though itargu es tha t it s claim s spe ciali st, A n d erso n , ad v ised R o g il li o of i ts inten t t o def end on M ar ch 15, 2007, ther e i s no w r i t t en oraudi o r ecor d of thi s phone conver s at i on and ther e i s no f ol l ow up conf

i r m at i on l ett ert o i ndi cat e w hat tra n sp ire d d u rin g th a t co n v e rsa tio n . A m e ric a n S tate s h a s n o t sh o w n th a t it m ade a n appea r ance i n thi s act i on s uch t hatR ogi l l i o w as r equi r ed t o pr ovi de a t lea st th re e d a y s’ n o tice to A m e ric a n S tate s o f its a p p lica tio n fo r d e fa u lt j udgm ent . A ccor di ngl y, thi s C our tconcl udes thatthe def aul tj udgm enti s not v o id fo r fail u re to c o m p ly w ith R u le 55 (b). R og ill io , 1 0 S o . 3 d a t 4 7 6 (¶ 3 6 ). ¶1 8. I n Kum arv. L oper , i n a dd i t i on t o one l et t ers entbef or e t hey f

i l ed t he cas e, def endant s ’ att orney had cont act ed pl ai nt i f f s ’ at t orney by t el ephone t o s ay thathe no l onger
r epr es ent ed the def

endant s and thats om eone e l s e m i ghtt ake overt he ca s e. Kum ar , 80 So. 3 d a t 8 1 4 (¶ 2 1 ). T h e C o u rt h e ld th a t w a s n o t a n a p p e a ra n c e , w riting , “T h a t tele p h o n e c a ll di d noti ncl ude i ndi ci a of de f ens e orde ni al of

the al l egat i ons of

the compl ai nt . I tdi d notm eet the r equi r ement s of

a R ul e 55( b) appea r ance . ” I d. T h e o n e p h o n e c a ll a n d o n e e m a il betw een the Text r on Par t i es ’ L oui s i ana a t t orney and the Leons’ att orney i s si m i l art o the att orneys ’ t el ephone c onver s at i on i n Kum ar . T he Text r on Par t i es ’ L ou i si ana a t t or ney acknow l edged thatt he cl ai m s agai ns thi s cl i ent s i n t he L oui s i ana c as e had be en dr opped, and

### Under theproduct

linesucc es sor

theor y, a suc ce ss or cor

porati on that m anuf

ac tures 3 

### the same p roduct as its pred ecessor corp oratio n can be “liab le for in juries cau sed b y d efects in t hat produc t and inhe ri t t

he l ia bil itie s a ss oci at ed wi th t he product

eve n if so ld and manufa ct ure d by theprede ce ssor co rpo rati on.” Huff v. Shopsmi

th, Inc . , 786 So. 2d 383, 387 (¶ 10) ( Mis s. 2001). Howeve r, thesuc ce ss or c ompany willbe lia blefor theproduc ts of it s prede ce ss or only if

thefollow ing ele me nts ar e pr es ent : ( 1) the s ucc es sor produc es the same produc t unde r a

si mi lar name ; ( 2) the s ucc es sor ac quired s ubst antia lly al l of pred ecessor co rpo ration ’s assets, leavin g on ly a corpo rate shell; (3) the su ccessor h old s itself out a s a me recontinuati on of the pr ede ce ss or; and ( 4) the suc ce ss or be nef it s f rom the 13 he as ked f

ora c opy of

the M i s s i s s i ppi c om pl ai nts o they coul d deci de how t o pr ocee d. T he L eon s’ at t orney sen thim a cop y o f the am end ed com plai nt, b ut there w as no o ther r espon se orcomm uni cat i on bef

or e the t i m e t o f

i l e an a ns w erexpi r ed. ¶19. T he one phone cal l and one emai l f r om the T extr on Par t i es ’ L oui s i ana att orney, w ho di d notr epr es entt hem i n t he M i s s i s s i ppi cas e, di d noti ndi cat e a c l eari nt entt o def end and di d notcons t i tut e an appear ance f orR ul e 55( b) purpos es . I n the pr ece dent cas es i n w hi ch the cour t s found thatthe part i es had appe ar ed f orR ul e 55( b) purpos es , the att orneys had
e x ten d e d c o n v e rsa tio n s, e x c h a n g e d m u lti p le le tters , d isc u ss e d th e n e e d fo r m o re tim e to
ans w er , orthe part i es actual l y fi l ed somethi ng w i th t he cour t . U nderthe f act s of the i ns t ant
cas e, w e hol d thatthe Text r on Par t i es had notappea r ed f orR ul e 55( b) purpos es and w er e not ent i t l ed t o not i ce. I I I . W het her t he L eons f ai l ed to s t at e a cl ai m agai nst the T ext ron P art i es in th e a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. ¶20. T he T extr on Par t i es as s ert that the def aul t j udgm ent i s voi d and shou l d be s etas i de b e c a u se th e L e o n s fa iled to sta te a c laim a g a in st th e m . T h e y m a in tain th a t, be c a u se th e y d id nota ctual l y manuf

actur e the vehi cl e ati s s ue, the onl y cl ai m the Leons c an have agai ns tt hem i s based on pr oductl i ne s ucce s s ortheory. T he Leons’ al l egat i ons r el at ed t o s ucce s s or 3

### pred ecessor’s g oo d w ill. Id. at 387 (¶ 12). 14 l i abi l i ty i n the amended compl ai ntw er e vague and conc l us ory st at ement s , sayi ng s i m pl y t hat the Text r on Par t i es w er e s ucce s s or s t o B ad B oy E nt erpr i s es becaus e t hey had pur chas ed the company and now pr oduced the of f
- r oad vehi cl es . T hus , the T extr on Par t i es ar gue thatthe L e o n s d id n o t sa tisfy th e p lea d in g sta n d a rd o f R u le 8 o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il Pr ocedur e. T he Leons r es pond t hats ucce s s orl i abi l i ty i s notthei ronl y val i d cl ai m and that th e re lev a n t i n q u iry is w h e th e r th e y c a n p ro v e a n y se t o f fa c ts th a t w o u ld su p p o rt th e ir cl ai m s. ¶ 2 1 . R u le 8 re q u ire s th a t a c o m p lain t co n tain “ a sh o rt a n d p la in s ta te m e n t o f th e c laim
s how i ng thatthe pl eade ri s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef
. ” M i s s . R . C i v. P. 8( a)
. T he purpos e of R ul e 8 i s t o putpart i es on not i ce of the cl ai m s agai ns tthem. W e have s ai d thatR ul e 8 does not
re q u ire a n y m a g ic w o rd s, “ it i s o n ly n e c e ss a ry tha t th e p lea d in g s p ro v id e su ffic ien t n o tice to the def endantof

the cl ai m s and gr ounds upon w hich rel i ef w hi ch i s s ought
. ” E s tate of Steve ns v. W

et z el , 762 So. 2d 293, 295 ( ¶ 11) ( M i s s . 2000) ( quot i ng D ynas teel Cor p. v. A z tec Indus. , I nc. , 6 11 So
. 2 d 97 7, 9 84 ( M i s s . 1 99 2) )
. The tr i a l c ou r tf ou nd tha tt he amended compl ai nts at i sf

i ed t he not i ce pl eadi ng r equi r ement s of R ul e 8 of

the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of Ci v i l P r o c e d u r e . W e a g r e e . W e d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s th e v i a b i l i ty o f e a c h o f th e L e o n s ’ c l a i ms o r w h e th e r su c c e ss o r liab ility is th e o n ly p o ss ib le c laim , as th e T e x tro n P a rties su g g e st. H ow ever , w e f

i nd thatthe amended compl ai ntcont ai ns a s uf f i ci ents t at ementof

the f act s and gr ounds under l yi ng the cl ai m s and pr ovi des suf f i ci entnot i ce of

the cl ai m s agai ns tt he T extr on Par t i es , w hi ch s at i s f i es the l i ber al pl eadi ng s t andar ds of R ul e 8.

### 15

I V . W he t he r t he t hr e e - pr ong e d t e s t f or s e t t i ng as i de a de f

aul t j udgm e nt r e q u ir e s th e d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t t o b e s e t a s id e . ¶22. A l though w e hol d thatthe def aul tj udgm entis n ot void for t he pr ocedur al r eas ons ar gued by the Text r on Par t i es , r eques t s forrel i ef f r om a def

aul tj udgm ental s o s houl d be
an alyz ed un d er R u les 55 (c) an d 60 (b). T h e C o u rtha s be en clear th at “d efa u ltjud g m en ts are notf avor ed. ” Mc Ca in , 7 9 1 S o . 2 d at 8 4 3 (¶ 1 0 ); G uar. N at ’l Ins . Co. v. P itt

m an , 501 So. 2d 377 , 3 87 -88 ( M i s s . 1987)
. “[ T ] r i al court s s houl d notbe grudgi ng i n . . . vaca t i ng s uch j udgm entw her e s how i ngs w i thi n the rul es have a r guabl y been made. ” G uar. N at ’l I ns. Co. , 501 So. 2d at387- 88 ( ci t i ng B e ll v. City o f B a y S t. L o u is , 4 6 7 S o . 2 d 6 5 7 , 6 6 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 )). T h e C o u rt h a s in stru c ted tha t a trial co u rt’s d isc re tio n in d e c id in g w h e th e r to v a c a te a d e fa u lt j udgm ent“mustbe exe r ci s ed i n acc or dance w i th the pr ovi s i ons of R ul es 55(c ) and 60( b) as
w el l as the suppl ement ary cr i t er i a gi ven val i di ty i n t he deci s i ons of thi s C our t . ” G u a r. N a t’l I ns. Co. , 501 So. 2d at388. ¶23 . A ccordi ng t o R u le 5 5 (c), a d efa u ltjud g m en tm ay b e setasi de “[f ] or goo d cause s how n” and i n acc or dance w i th Rul e 60( b)
. M i s s . R. C i v. P. 55( c)
. T he C our thas art i cul at ed a thr ee- pr onged bal anci ng t es tt o appl y i n deci di ng w hethert o s etas i de a j udgm entpur s uant to R u le 60 (b): th e tri al co u rtm u st co n side r “(1 ) th e n ature a n d leg it im ac y o f the d efe n d an t’ s
r eas ons f orhi s def aul t , i
. e. w hetherthe def endanthas good caus e f ordef aul t , ( 2) w hethert he def endant i n facthas a col or abl e def ens e t o the mer i t s of

the cl ai m , and ( 3) the natur e and ext e nto f p r e j ud i c e whi c h may be s uf f e r e d by the p l a i nt i f

f i f the d e f a ul tj ud gment i s s et
as i de. ” R og ill

io , 1 0 S o . 3 d at 46 8 (¶ 1 0 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted).

A . G o o d c a u se fo r de

fa u lt

### 16

¶24. T he Text r on Par t i es cl ai m thatthei r f ai l ure t o fi l e an a ns w erw as an uni nt ent i onal
m i s t ake, butthey conc ede thatthey di d nothave good caus e f orf ai l i ng t o ans w ert he
co m p lai n t. T h e tri al co u rtfou n d that there w as n o g o o d ca u se fo r th e T ex tr o n P arti es’ fail u re t o an sw er the co m plai nt. W e agree, and the fact or w ei gh s agai nstthe T extr on P art i es. H o w e v e r, l a c k o f g o o d ca u se alo n e w ill n o t pr e v e n t th e C o u rt fro m se tti n g a s id e a d e fa u lt j udgm enti f

the othertw o f

act or s w ei gh i n f

avorof s ett i ng i tas i de. See A m . Cable Cor p. v. T r ilogy Com m c’n, I

nc. , 754 So. 2d 545, 556 ( ¶ 44) (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2000) ( “The pr ocedur al
m is-s te p s b y A m e ric a n C a b le, w h ich a re g ro u n d s fo r fin d in g th e first fa c to r in th e d e fa u lt anal ysi s agai ns tthem, ar e nots uf f i ci entby themsel ves t o perm i tthe uphol di ng of the tr i al
co u rt ’s de n ial o f th e m o ti o n to se t asi d e the d efa u lt
. ”). B . Colorable defen se ¶2 5 . W e h a v e h e ld u n e q u iv o c a lly tha t “th e se co n d fac tor, the p rese n ce o f a co lora b le d e fe n s e , o u tw e ig h s th e o th e r tw o , an d w e h a v e e n c o u ra g e d trial c o u rts to v a c a te a d e fa u lt j udgm entw her e ‘ the def endantha s s how n thathe has a mer i t or i ous def ens e. ’ ” A l

l state I n s. Co. v. G r een , 794 So. 2d 170, 174 ( ¶ 9) ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng B ailey v. G eor gia Cotton G oods Co. , 5 4 3 S o . 2 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 )). See al s o Flags tarB ank, F

SB v. D anos , 46 S o. 3d 298, 307 ( ¶ 32) ( M i s s . 2010) ( “col or abl e- def ens e pr ong i s the mosti m por t antf act or ”) ( ci t i ng R og ill io , 1 0 S o . 3 d a t 4 6 9 (¶ 1 6 )). R e g a rd in g a tria l co u rt’s d isc re tio n in se tti n g a sid e d e fa u lt ju d g m e n ts, th e C o u rt h a s h e ld : “[T ]he im p o rta n c e o f liti g a n ts h a v in g a trial o n th e m e rits
s houl d al w ays be a seri ous cons i der at i on by a tr i al j udge i n s uch mat t er s . T hus , any err or
m ade b y a tr i a l j ud ge s ho ul d be i n the d i r e c t i on o f s e t t i ng a s i de a d e f

a ul tj ud gmentand

### Seesupra footnote3. 4 

### 17 pr ocee di ng w i th tr i al
. ” G r een , 794 So. 2d at174 ( ¶ 9) ( quot i ng Cla rk v. City o f P a sc ag o u la , 5 0 7 S o . 2 d 7 0 , 7 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 ))
. ¶ 2 6 . Th e tr i a l c o u r tf o u n d th a tth e Te x tr o n P a r t i e s ha d c o l o r a b l e d e f e n s e s t o th e c l a i ms agai ns tt hem, and w e agr ee. T he Text r on Par t i es ’ def ens es i ncl ude thatthey di d notdes i gn,
m anuf actur e, ordi s tr i but e the vehi cl e i n ques t i on, w hi ch w as m anuf actur ed i n 2009 by B ad B oy E nt erpr i s es . B B B uggi es pur chas ed ce r t ai n as s et s f r om Bad B oy Ent erpr i s es i n 2010, and they s i gned an a s s etpur chas e agr eement , w hi ch pr ovi ded thatB ad B oy E nterpri ses ret ai ned l i abil i ty for cl ai m s ar i si ng ou tof prod u cts itm anu factured. A s t o the L eon s’
su c c e ss o r liab ili ty c laim , the T e x tro n P a rties as se rt th a t th e L e o n s c a n n o t pr o v e the e lem e n ts
r equi r ed t o s ubj ectthem t o l i abi l i ty f or B ad B oy E nt erpr i s es ’ s pr oduct s , s peci f i cal l y, t hey cannotpr ove thatB ad B oy E nt erpr i s es i s a mer e corpor at e s hel l
. Fi nal l y, the Text r on Par t i es 4 h a v e th e d e fe n se s o f m isu se a n d n e g lig e n t o p e ra tio n o f th e v e h ic le. J e a n -a h w a s o n ly f our t een ye ar s ol d, butthe ow ner ’ s manual s ays the vehi cl e s houl d notbe oper at ed by anyone
u n d e r e ig h te e n . T h e c o lo ra b le d e fe n s e fa c to r w e ig h s in f a v o ro f t h e T e x tr o n P a rt ie s . W e h av e h eld th at th e c o lorab le de fen se fa ctor a lo n e “ sh o u ld o ft en b e su ffi cien t t o justi fy
vaca t i on of

a j udgm entent er ed by def aul t . ” G uar. N

at ’l I ns. Co. , 501 So. 2d at388. C. Pr e j udic e to t

he Leo ns ¶27. T he t hi r d prong of the bal anci ng t es tr equi r es cons i der at i on of the ext entof pr ej udi ce, if a n y , that the L eon s w ou l d suff er i f the d efaul tj ud gm ent w as setasi de. T he tr i al cou rt

### 18

fou n d that a de lay in the d am ag es tr ial w o u ld be preju d ici al t o the L eo n s. T h e tri al co u rt ’s
or deri ncl uded the f

ol l ow i ng r at i onal e f

orthatconcl us i on: T he [ c] our tf

i nds thatthe del ay i n a d am ages tr i al thatw oul d r es ul ti f the [ d] ef aul t[ j ] udgm entw er e s eta s i de w oul d be pr ej udi ci al t o J ean- ah Leon, w ho needs i m m edi at e medi cal t r eatm ent , ther apy[ , ] and r ehab f orhers er i ous i nj ur i es . E very day thatpas s es pr i ort o tr i al c r eat es a ddi t i onal pr ej udi ce. T he [ c] our tnot es otherpr ej udi ce t o M s . L eon, i ncl udi ng the pot ent i al f orl os s of avai l abl e i ns ur ance s houl d thi s m att erbe del ayed a nd the f actthatbutf

orthe [ d] ef aul t[ j ] udgm ents he w ou l d be r equi r ed t o l i t i gat e aga i ns tthe other def endant s . A s thi ngs s t and, w i th the [ d] ef aul t[ j ] udgm ent , s he ca n pr ove her damag es case and c oncl ude the mat t erw i thoutgoi ng thr ough addi t i onal l i t i gat i on. T he Text r on Pl ai nt i f

f s cont end thatthe need t o l i t i gat e i s notgrounds f orf i ndi ng pr ej udi ce. W e a g re e . W e h a v e h e ld r e p e a te d ly th a t th e fa c t th a t th e p lain tiffs w o u ld b e re q u ire d to l i t i gat e thei rcas e and pr ove thei rcl ai m s i s not“cogni zabl e pr ej udi ce. ” Kum ar , 80 S o. 3d at 816 ( ¶ 29) ( ci t i ng B ailey , 543 So. 2d at183)
. “The m er e f act [that] t he pl ai nt i f

f m ay have t o try and pr ove hi s c as e does nots t ay the j udi ci al hand. T hati s notthe s or tof pr ej udi ce the
rul e cont em plat es. ” R ush v. N or th A m er i can V

an L ines , 60 8 S o. 2d 12 05 , 12 11 (M i ss. 1992)
. The Text r on Part i es c orr ect l y a s s ertthatpr ej udi ce does notr es ul tf r om “the l os s of
r i ght s thatw er e obt ai nabl e onl y by def aul t . ” I n re E s tates of

G ates , 876 So. 2d 1059, 1065 (¶ 1 8 ) ( M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶28. W e have r ecogni zed that the del ay i n r es ol vi ng a cl ai m can cons t i tut e pr ej udi ce t o an in ju re d p la in tif

f i n c a s e s in v o lv in g s e x u a l h a ra s s m e n t. Kum ar , 8 0 S o . 3 d at 81 6 (¶ 2 9 ). In addi t i on, the pas s age of t i m e i s r el evanti n c as es i nvol vi ng c ara cci dent s orother si m i l ar i nci den t s t hathi nge on “w i tnes s es ’ m emori es r egar di ng a s pl i ts econd e vent , ” w hi ch f ade
o v e r t im e . G uar. N

at ’l I ns. Co. , 501 So. 2d at388. W e do notdeny thatJ ean- ah has been

### 19

injured an d n ee d s reso luti o n o f he r claim s. H o w ev er, he r claim s are n o t o f a sen sit ive n ature l i ke the s exual har as s m entcl ai m s i n Kum ar . T h e ins tant ca se d o es in v o lve a v eh icle
acc i dent , butthe def

endant s ’ al l eged l i abi l i ty i s bas ed on thei rmanuf actur i ng a nd s el l i ng of the vehi cl e, noton the ac ci denti t s el f , as i n G uarant

y N ati onal
. Fur ther , i n the i ns t antcas e, the tr i al courtl i f

t ed the s t ay on di s covery as t o al l def endant s w hi l e t he i nt er l ocut ory appea l i s pendi ng, s o the part i es have c ont i nued t o l i t i gat e the ca se, an d t hey w i l l nots t artf r om s cr at ch i f the def aul tj udgm enti s s etas i de. T hatbei ng s o, the comm on cl ai m i n s uppor tof a f i nd i ng of

pr ej udi ce, thatm emori es f ade a nd evi dence m ay be l os tovert i m e, i s not appl i cable here ei ther
. I n addi t i on, the def aul tj udgm entati s s ue pr ovi ded thata tr i al on damages w oul d t ake pl ace ata l at erdat e. T hus , the Leons di d notobt ai n compl et e r es ol ut i on
w ith th e d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t b e c a u s e th e d a m a g e s tr ia l s till h a s to o c c u r. ¶ 2 9 . T h e L e o n s d id n o t fi le s u it u n til a y e a r af ter the ac c id e n t. T h e n , th e y v o lu n ta rily di s m i s s ed mostof

the def endant s i n the Loui s i ana c as e and r ef i l ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi
. T hus , any i ni t i al del ays w er e ca us ed by the Leons. T he Leons f i l ed sui tin M i ssi s s i ppi on J une 11, 2012, and they s erved the T extr on P art i es a mont h l at eron J ul y 16. T he def aul tj udgm ent
w as ent er ed on T hur s day, A ugus t23, 2012 . B y M onday, A ugus t27, j us tf ourdays af

t ert he def aul tj udgm entw as ent er ed, the Text r on Par t i es had l earned of t he def aul tj udgm entand ret ai ned a n a tt o rney, w ho con t act ed the L eon s’ at t orney thatday
. T he T extr on P art i es’
m ot i on t o s etas i de the def aul tj udgm entw as f

i l ed A ugus t31, tw o w eeks af t erthei rans w er
w as due and onl y ei ghtdays af t erthe def

aul tj udgm entw as ent er ed. T he tr i al courthel d a hear i ng on O ct ober23, 2012, and deni ed the m ot i on t o s eta s i de the def aul tj udgm entf

r om

### 20

the benc h. T he tr i al co urt ’ s or derand opi ni on w as ent er ed N ovember1, 2012, thr ee a nd a h a lf m o n th s fr o m th e d a te th e T e x tr o n P a rt ie s w e re s e rv e d w ith th e o ri g in a l c o m p la in t. ¶30. L es s than f

our m onths f

r om comm ence m ent of the act i on t o r es ol ut i on on the mot i on to se t as id e th e d e fa u lt j u d g m e n t – w ith o n ly e ig h t d a y s b e tw e e n e n try o f th e d e fa u lt j u d g me n ta n d th e mo t i o n t o s e ta s i d e –i s a v e ry s h o r ta mo u n to f t i me c o mp a r e d t o th e t i me l aps e i n cas es w her e w e have f ound thatthe del ay ca us ed by the def endant s w as pr ej udi ci al to th e p la in tif

fs
. See Kum ar , 80 So. 3d 808 ( compl ai ntf i l ed and s erved D ece m ber9, 2008; def aul tj udgm ente nt er ed February 24, 2009; da m ages aw ar ded J une 11, 2009; and mot i on to s e t a sid e filed Ju n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 , fo u r m o n th s a fte r d e fa u lt j u d g m e n t w a s e n ter e d ); R og ill io , 10 So. 3d 463 ( m or e than a mont h el aps ed f r om dat e def

aul tj udgm entent er ed unt i l m ot i on t o s etas i de f

i l ed, and more than f

our t een m onths el aps ed f r om t i m e compl ai ntw as f i l ed and
se rv e d u n til m o tio n to se t as id e d e fa u lt j u d g m e n t w a s d e n ied ); Stanf or d v. P arker , 822 So. 2d 886 ( M i s s . 2002) (f

our t een m onths fr om t i m e def endant s w er e s erved unt i l r es ol ut i on on
m o tio n to se t as id e d e fa u lt j u d g m e n t; m o tio n to s e t a sid e filed n e a rly a y e a r a fte r d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t en ter e d ); G uar. N at ’l I ns. Co. , 501 So. 2d 377 ( m ot i on t o s etas i de fi l ed f our
m onths af

t erdef aul tj udgm entent er ed; m ot i on t o s etas i de den i ed t hi r t een mont hs af t er co m p lai n t w as fil ed an d serv ed ). ¶31. A l though the T extr on Part i es mi s s ed the deadl i ne f orf i l i ng an an sw er, t hey act ed p ro m p tly a fte r d isc o v e rin g th e d e fa u lt j u d g m e n t. R e g a rd in g th e trial c o u rt’s r e fe re n c e to J ean- ah’ s need f

ori m m edi at e medi cal tr eatm ent , ther e i s no e vi dence i n the r ecor d thatJ eanah i s notgett i ng t he medi cal tr eatm ents he nee ds
. Fur ther , di s covery has been ongoi ng,
w h ich p rec lud es claim s for l o ss of ev iden ce an d w il l sav e the pa rt ies t im e if th e c a se is

### 21

re m a n d e d . T h e trial c o u rt’s p rim a ry re a so n fo r f in d in g p re

ju d ice w a s th a t th e L e o n s w o u ld b e re q u ir ed to g o to tr ial an d p rov e th e ir ca se. T h at alon e is n o t a su ffi cien t r ea so n for a f i ndi ng of pr ej udi ce. T aki ng al l of thi s i nt o cons i der at i on, w e ca nnotf i nd thatthe del ay w as p re ju d ic ia l to th e L e o n s . ¶32. W i th the out come i n the i ns t ant cas e, w e do not , i n any w ay, m ean t o underm i ne the pr i nci pl e thatthe duty t o ans w ert i m el y i s of ut m os ti m por t ance . W e emphas i ze that“the duty t o ans w erm us tbe t aken s er i ous l y. ” G uar. N at ’l I ns. Co. , 5 0 1 S o . 2 d at 3 8 9 . L iti g a n ts
m u s t u n d e rs ta n d th a t, “ [a ]t s o m e p o in t[,] th e tr a in m u s t le a v e ” th e s ta tio n . I d. H o w ev er, underthe f

act s of thi s c as e – w her e onl y tw o w eeks e l aps ed f r om the dat e the ans w erw as due t o the dat e the m ot i on t o s etas i de the def aul tj udgm entw as f

i l ed – w e ca nnotf

i nd pr ej udi ce t o the Leons. W hen the tr i al courtrul ed on the mot i on t o s eta s i de, l es s than f ourmont hs had pas s ed s i nce the l i t i gat i on com m ence d
. A l l owi ng the T extr on Par t i es t o ans w erthe compl ai nt atthatpoi ntw oul d nothave r es ul t ed i n pre j udi ce t o t he L eons . T he t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on on thi s pr ong amount ed t o an abus e of di s cr et i on. T he i ns t antf act orw ei ghs i n f

avorof t he T extr on P art i es. ¶33. T w o of the thr ee f act or s – col or abl e def

ens e and pr ej udice – w ei gh i n f avor of t he T e x tro n P a rties a n d , th u s, in fa v o r o f s e tti n g a sid e th e d e fa u lt j u d g m e n t. T h e re fo re , w e h o ld thatthe tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n f ai l i ng t o s etas i de the def aul tjudgm ent . T he def aul tj udgm entagai ns tthe Text r on Par t i es i s s etas i de, and the ca s e i s r emanded f or pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th the i ns t antopi ni on. C oncl usi on

### 22

¶34. W e hol d thatthe def aul tj udgm enti s not voi d f orthe r eas ons a r gued by the Text r on Par t i es – the Leons pr oper l y s erved thei rame nded com pl ai ntunderR ul e 5; the Text r on Par t i es had notappea r ed f orR ul e 55( b) purpos es , s o they w er e notent i t l ed t o not i ce of t he d e fa u lt; a n d th e a m e n d e d c o m p la in t w a s s u ffic ien t u n d e r R u le 8 . H o w e v e r, th e d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t is se t a sid e b e c a u se th e T e x tro n P a rties h a v e a c o lo ra b le d e fe n se a n d th e L e o n s w ill
n o t s u ff e r p re ju d ic e . ¶ 3 5 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. D I C K I N S O N , P .J ., L A M A R , K I T C H E N S , C H A N D L E R , A N D K I N G , J J ., CO NCU R. PI ERCE, J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY W I TH SEP ARA TE W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y W A L L E R , C . J. , A N D R A N D O L P H , P . J. W ALLER, C. J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N RESULT W I TH O UT SEP ARA TE W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. P I ER CE , J US TI CE , CONCURR I NG I N RE S UL T ONL Y: ¶36. I agr ee w i th t he maj or i ty thatthe def aul tj udgm enti n thi s i ns t ance s houl d be s et as i de. I n m y opi ni on, how ever , t he j udgm entent er ed agai ns tt he T extr on P art i es w as voi d bas ed on the L eon s’ fai l ure t o serve t heiram end ed co m plai nt, w hich a d d ed n ew cl ai m s f or gross
n e g lig e n c e a n d p u n iti v e d a m a g e s a g a in st th e T e x tro n P a rties , u n d e r th e se rv ice re q u ire m e n ts p re sc rib e d b y R u le 4 o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re . T h e re fo re , I co n c u r in
re s u lt o n ly
. ¶ 3 7 . A p a rty c a n n o t av a il i tse lf o f th e m o re rela x e d se rv ice sta n d a rd s p re sc rib e d b y R u le 5 of the M i s s i s s i ppi Rul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, w i th r egar d t o amended compl ai nt s as s er t i ng new cl ai m s , unl es s the defend ant has m ade a n appea r ance i n the ca s e. I n M i s s i s s i ppi , an “appe ar ance ” f

orpurpos es of

the rul es i s s ynonym ous w i th a “gener al appea r ance . ” See, e. g. , McCoy v. W

at s on , 154 M i s s . 307, 122 So. 368 ( 1929) ( r ei t er at i ng thatw her e ther e has been

### 23

no val i d pr oces s i n the case o r no “gene r al appea r ance ” by def endant , no j ur i s di ct i on has b ee n ac q u ir ed b y the c o u rt ). ¶3 8 . A s n o ted b y th e m ajority , b o th R u le 4 an d R u le 5 o f the M issi ssipp i R u les o f C ivil Pr ocedur e ar e model ed af t erthe Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. W hi l e ce r t ai nl y not contr ol l i ng author i ty f

orourpr ocedur al rul es , f eder al cas es and tr eat i s es s peaki ng t o and i nt erpr et i ng f

eder al rul es thatar e count erpart s t o ourow n pr ovi de per s uas i ve author i ty. T he lea d in g tre a tise o n fe d e ra l p ra c tice a n d p ro c e d u re , W rig h t & M ill e r, sp e a k s to F e d e ra l R u le 5 as f ol l ow s : “The se r vi ce of paperpr ovi s i ons of

[ Feder al ] R ul e 5 appl y onl y t o part i es w ho have appear ed. T hus i ti s cl earthatamended ors uppl ement al pl eadi ngs m us tbe s erved on part i es w ho have notyetappea r ed i n the ac t i on i n conf or m i ty w i th [ Feder al ] R ul e 4. ” See 4 A C h a rl e s A la n W ri g h t & A u th u r R . M ille r, Federal P ract i ce an d P rocedu re § 1146 ( 3d ed
. 2 0 0 2 ). ¶ 3 9 . A s a g e n e ra l ru le , a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t s u p e rs e d e s th e o ri g in a l c o m p la in t. S e e , e .g ., K in g v. D ogan , 31 F. 3d 344, 346 ( 5th C i r . 1994) ( percur i am) ( “A n amended compl ai nt
s uper s edes the or i gi nal com pl ai ntand r ender s i tof no l egal ef

f ect . ”) L i ke the or i gi nal compl ai nt , the amended compl ai ntal s o m us tbe s erved upon the def endantunderR ul e 4
r equi r ement s , unl es s the def endantal r eady ha s m ade a n appea r ance i n the ca s e–otherw i s e, th e c o u rt h a s n o ju risd ictio n o v e r th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. ¶40. A s the T extr on Par t i es had not m ade an appea r ance i n the cas e, the ci r cui t courthad no j ur i s di ct i on t o ent era j udgm entagai ns tthem on t he am ended c om pl ai ntas s ert i ng new cl ai m s agai ns tthe Text r on Par t i es . A ccor di ngl y, I w oul d hol d thatj udgm enti s voi d. W AL LE R, C. J . , AND RA NDOL P H, P . J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.