Opinion ID: 478434
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judicial Mistake

Text: 18 Bio-Energy next argues that relief from the February 28 order is warranted under 60(b)(1) because the district court committed a mistake of law in entering the order. To the extent the order constitutes a default judgment, it is allegedly invalid because the court failed to comply with the notice and hearing provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b). 1 Specifically, Solaroll failed to apply to the district court for a default judgment, and the court failed to serve notice to Bio-Energy at least three days prior to the hearing. In the alternative, to the extent the February 28 order constitutes a summary final judgment, it is invalid because Solaroll failed to file a motion for summary judgment at least ten days prior to entry of the order. 2 Thus, according to appellant, the district court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate its order. 19 We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion because the district court did not commit any mistake of law in entering the judgment. First of all, the reinstatement order was not a default judgment within the meaning of Rule 55. Rule 55 applies to parties against whom affirmative relief is sought who fail to plead or otherwise defend. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Thus a court can enter a default judgment against a defendant who never appears or answers a complaint, for in such circumstances the case never has been placed at issue. If the defendant has answered the complaint but fails to appear at trial, issue has been joined, and the court cannot enter a default judgment. However, the court can proceed with the trial. If plaintiff proves its case, the court can enter judgment in its favor although the defendant never participated in the trial. Seven Elves, 635 F.2d at 400 n. 2; Bass v. Hoagland, 172 F.2d 205, 209-10 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 816, 70 S.Ct. 57, 94 L.Ed. 494 (1949); S.D.Fla. Local R. 10(C). In such circumstances, Rule 55 is inapplicable. 20 In this case, the responsive pleading stage had long passed, and issue already had been joined. There is no indication that Solaroll moved to strike Bio-Energy's previous pleadings when Bio-Energy failed to respond or that the court did the same to penalize Bio-Energy. When appellant failed to respond, the district court simply proceeded with the motion, receiving appellee's evidence and basing its decision on the record. Such a judgment is not a default judgment; therefore, the court was not required to follow Rule 55. 21 Even if the conditional dismissal with prejudice closed the original action so that Solaroll's motion to reinstate constitutes a new action, the court was not required to provide Bio-Energy with additional notice. The notice and hearing provisions of Rule 55 apply only to parties who have made an appearance. Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors, 761 F.2d 1527, 1531 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Arango v. Compania Dominicana de Aviacion, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 408, 88 L.Ed.2d 359 (1985). Although a court filing is not necessary to make an appearance, see, e.g., Traveltown, Inc. v. Gerhardt Investment Group, 577 F.Supp. 155, 157 (N.D.N.Y.1983) (serving plaintiff with answer constitutes appearance even though not filed with court), the unfulfilled promise appellant's counsel made to appellee's counsel does not constitute an appearance. Thus, the February 28 order is not void for lack of notice even if the order constitutes a default judgment. 22 Nor is the February 28 order a final summary judgment. A preliminary pleading can be treated as a motion for summary judgment if accompanied by affidavits. See, e.g., Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669, 671, 92 S.Ct. 1232, 31 L.Ed.2d 569 (1972) (per curiam) (motion to dismiss treated as motion for summary judgment). However, an order is not a summary judgment merely because the court relied only on the movant's supporting evidence. If the opposing party fails to respond despite adequate notice, it, and not the court, is responsible for the summary nature of the order. Appellant would require forgetful or dilatory parties to receive notice twice: first when the motion is served originally and once again before the court enters the order. Rule 56 requires no such double notice. Appellant here received adequate notice of the motion to reinstate. Its failure to respond does not entitle it to additional notice. 23 Thus we conclude that appellant Bio-Energy has failed to establish any grounds for relief under either 60(b)(1) or (b)(6). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vacate the reinstatement order. AFFIRMED WITH SANCTIONS.