Opinion ID: 684580
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Vacation of Orders in Givens' Favor

Text: 19 Givens argues that the district court abused its discretion when it granted defendants' May 7 Motion to Vacate Default Judgment, because there was no good cause for defendants' failure to timely answer his complaint and failure to appear on May 1, 1991. 20 Givens further argues that the magistrate judge abused his discretion when he granted defendants' motion to vacate the March 24, 1992 order which granted summary judgment in favor of Givens. In the March 24 order, Magistrate Judge Kauffman noted that [t]he court is very concerned at the outset about the conduct of the attorneys for the defendants in this case. The attorneys have displayed a sanctionable lack of due diligence in proceeding with this case. March 24, 1992 Order at 1. 21 Both orders were procedurally made as minute entries; we have nothing in the record (except for a docket entry regarding the motion to vacate default judgment: The merits of this case must be addressed; the pla[intiff] may not prevail on the basis of a technicality) to indicate the judges' reasons for granting defendants' motions. 22 Although we affirm the decision against Givens on the merits, we must observe that the failures and improper conduct of defense counsel might well have led the district court to award judgment to Givens as a sanction for counsel's conduct. We do not, however, find an abuse of discretion by the district court in reaching and deciding the merits. 23 Accordingly, we AFFIRM.