Opinion ID: 6337323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Vacatur of Default

Text: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a district court to set aside an entry of default for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). In deciding a motion to vacate an entry of default, the district court is to be guided principally by three factors: “(1) whether the default was willful; (2) whether setting aside the default would prejudice the adversary; and (3) whether a meritorious defense is presented.” Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90, 96 (2d Cir. 1993). We review a district court’s decision on a motion to vacate the entry of a default for abuse of discretion, id. at 95, keeping in mind our Circuit’s “strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits.” New York v. Green, 420 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, through its July 13, 2021 order, the District Court concluded that vacatur of the previously entered default against Bradley was justified. Baxter I, 2021 WL 2941131, at . Upon review of the record, we find that the District Court acted well within its discretion in arriving at that conclusion. The record shows that Bradley’s failure to respond to the complaint was not willful: he 2 attempted to secure counsel from the New York State Attorney General’s Office when he received Baxter’s complaint and mistakenly believed he had fulfilled his obligations. Nor was Baxter prejudiced by the delay. The approximately two months that lapsed between the deadline for Bradley to respond and his eventual appearance did not impair Baxter’s ability to prosecute his claims; Baxter did not argue, for example, that witnesses or evidence were lost because of the delay. And “delay standing alone does not establish prejudice.” Enron Oil Corp., 10 F.3d at 98. Finally, Bradley offered a meritorious defense. “The test of such a defense is measured not by whether there is a likelihood that it will carry the day, but whether the evidence submitted, if proven at trial, would constitute a complete defense.” Id. Bradley offered evidence that Baxter could not establish a due process claim because he did not suffer any injury to his liberty interests. Because all of the factors weighed in favor of vacating the entry of default, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by doing so.