Court Opinion

ID: 2965020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:15.704594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:04.578613
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1829

                              RANDOLPH E. GREEN, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                               CITY OF BOSTON, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                  [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Randolph E. Green on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Merita  A.  Hopkins,  Corporation  Counsel,  and  Gerald  Fabiano,
            ___________________                               _______________
        Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Boston Law Department, on brief
        for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                  December 19, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Plaintiffs  appeal from  a district  court
                 __________

            judgment dismissing their civil rights  complaint for failure

            to state  a claim.   Their principal contention on  appeal is

            that the  district court erred  in setting aside a  notice of

            default, which  had been  entered when  defendants failed  to

            file a timely response to the amended complaint.  The setting

            aside  of an  entry of default  is subject to  a "good cause"

            standard, Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), is reviewable on appeal only

            for abuse of  discretion, and is not to  be disturbed "unless

            the  district court's decision is clearly wrong," McKinnon v.
                                                              ________

            Kwong Wah Restaurant, 83 F.3d 498, 502  (1st Cir. 1996).  The
            ____________________

            court's action here cannot possibly be so characterized. 

                 The "good  cause" standard is  a "mutable" one,  Coon v.
                                                                  ____

            Grenier, 867 F.2d  73, 76 (1st Cir. 1989),  involving a case-
            _______

            specific  determination  not  amenable   to  any  "mechanical

            formula,"  General  Contracting &  Trading Co.  v. Interpole,
                       ___________________________________     __________

            Inc., 899 F.2d 109, 112 (1st Cir. 1990).  We have nonetheless
            ____

            identified  some   general  guidelines  to   assist  in   its

            application.  See, e.g., McKinnon, 83 F.3d at 503; Interpole,
                          ___  ____  ________                  _________

            899  F.2d  at 112;  Coon,  867 F.2d  at  76.   These criteria
                                ____

            overwhelmingly  predominate  in   defendants'  favor.     For

            example,  there  has  been  no  suggestion  but  that  simple

            inadvertence was  involved here.   Plaintiffs  have not  been

            prejudiced  in  any relevant  sense.    See,  e.g.,  FDIC  v.
                                                    ___   ____   ____

            Francisco Inv. Corp., 873 F.2d 474, 479 (1st Cir. 1989).  The
            ____________________

                                         -2-

            defenses mounted  by defendants  have proven to  be not  only

            potentially but actually  meritorious.  And defendants  acted

            promptly  upon  learning  of their  oversight.    Given these

            circumstances,  the  district  court  acted  well  within its

            discretion in setting aside the entry of default.

                 Plaintiffs'  remaining  contention  is  that  the  court

            discriminated against them in failing to address two of their

            offerings:  their motion  to "vacate"  defendants' motion  to

            dismiss, and  their motion for  "order of judgment."   To the

            contrary,  the court necessarily  if implicitly  denied those

            requests in the course of granting the motion to dismiss.

                 As plaintiffs have advanced no specific challenge to the

            holding that their amended complaint failed to state a claim,

            it  suffices  to  note  that  we  find  the district  court's

            reasoning in this regard unexceptionable.

                 Affirmed. 
                 _________

                                         -3-