Opinion ID: 1476400
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Other Considerations Moot

Text: ACC acknowledges that it was required, as the defaulting party, to make some showing that if relief were granted the outcome of the action would be different. In other words, ACC was required to demonstrate that a meritorious defense to the action existed. [19] The Martinellis argue that ACC's claim of a meritorious defense, the claim that Dennis Martinelli committed fraud, consists entirely of assertions by ACC's counsel in the motion and at oral argument, and is wholly unsupported by sworn affidavits. Moreover, the Martinellis submit that after the Superior Court found that there was an insufficient factual basis to support a finding of excusable neglect pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), the issue of whether there is a meritorious defense became moot and should not be addressed in accordance with the holdings in Battaglia [20] and Keith. [21] We agree. It is well-established that the Superior Court should consider either the possibility of a meritorious defense or possible prejudice to the plaintiff, only if a satisfactory explanation has been established for failing to answer the complaint, e.g. excusable neglect or inadvertence. [22]