Court Opinion

ID: 9556788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 18:00:48.569401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:57.161325
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20385         Document: 00516863168            Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/18/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                August 18, 2023
                                        No. 22-20385                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk

   Vecron Exim, Limited,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Afif Baltagi,

                                                                 Defendant—Appellant.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. H-18-2394

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Kurt D. Engelhardt, Circuit Judge:*
          Appellant Afif Baltagi (“Baltagi”) appeals the default judgment
   against him, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in entering
   the default judgment and in denying his motions to vacate the default
   judgment. Baltagi argues that the default judgment was improper because he
   was never served with the original complaint and therefore was not on notice
   that he needed to file a responsive pleading. Baltagi’s argument is undercut

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20385        Document: 00516863168        Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/18/2023

                                    No. 22-20385

   both by Vecron’s proof of service and accompanying affidavit from July 2018
   and by Baltagi’s extensive and meaningful participation in this case.
   Accordingly, we agree with the district court that Baltagi’s default was willful
   and thus affirm.
                                          I
          On September 29, 2021, Vecron requested the entry of default against
   Appellant “for failure to plead or otherwise defend Plaintiff’s claims in a
   timely manner.” That same day, the district court entered the Order of
   Default as to Appellant, and the clerk issued an entry of default. Over five
   months later, on March 11, 2022, the district court granted default judgment
   against Appellant. Three days later, Appellant filed a pleading titled
   “Defendant Afif Baltagi Requesting to Be Dismissed on Order that Was Filed
   March 11th 2022.” On March 18, 2022, the district court entered an order
   stating that it had “carefully reviewed Baltagi’s Motion” but was “not
   persuaded that the default entered against him should be set aside or that the
   court’s March 11, 2022, Order should be vacated.” Accordingly, the district
   court denied Appellant’s motion and entered a final judgment against him.
          On May 18, 2022, Appellant filed a second motion to vacate the final
   judgment. For the first time, Appellant claimed that he had never been
   properly served. Vecron responded with extensive evidence of Appellant’s
   active participation in the case for years, including filings made by Appellant,
   e-mails from Appellant discussing and consenting to various filings, and
   portions of Appellant’s deposition transcript where he was represented by
   counsel.
          On July 1, 2022, the district court issued a 39-page Memorandum
   Opinion and Order denying Baltagi’s second motion to vacate. In its order,
   the district court meticulously detailed Appellant’s participation in the case

                                          2
Case: 22-20385      Document: 00516863168            Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/18/2023

                                      No. 22-20385

   and found that Appellant’s default of his obligation to file a responsive
   pleading was willful. This appeal follows.
                                           II
          The panel reviews the entry of a default judgment for abuse of
   discretion. Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290, 291–92 (5th Cir. 2000). Any
   underlying factual determinations, including a finding of willful default, are
   reviewed for clear error. Id. at 292. “No clear error exists if the factual
   findings are ‘plausible in light of the record as a whole.’ In other words, ‘[w]e
   will find clear error only if a review of the record results in a definite and firm
   conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” United States v. Lima-
   Rivero, 971 F.3d 518, 520 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Zuniga,
   720 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013)) (internal citations omitted).
                                           III
          We look to three factors to determine whether good cause to set aside
   a default judgment exists: whether default was willful, whether setting it aside
   would prejudice the adversary, and whether a meritorious defense is
   presented. Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assocs., Inc., 788 F.3d 490, 500 (5th
   Cir. 2015). But a “finding of willful default ends the inquiry, for when the
   court finds an intentional failure of responsive pleadings there need be no
   other finding.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Willfulness is defined as an
   intentional failure to respond to litigation. In re OCA, Inc., 551 F.3d 359, 370
   n.32 (5th Cir. 2008).
          The district court here stopped after the willfulness inquiry, which
   raises the question of whether it committed clear error when it determined
   that Appellant’s decision to not file a responding pleading was willful. The
   district court made no clear error. In its comprehensive memorandum
   opinion, the district court thoroughly reviewed Baltagi’s participation in the
   case from 2018 through 2022 and found that it could only conclude that

                                           3
Case: 22-20385      Document: 00516863168            Page: 4    Date Filed: 08/18/2023

                                      No. 22-20385

   Baltagi was “‘aware of the allegations against [him] and chose to do nothing.
   That is the definition of willful default, and relief for good cause is unavailable
   to [him].’” Bossier v. Katsur, 676 F. App’x 260, 263 (5th Cir. 2017). As the
   district court’s findings are plausible in light of the record as a whole, we
   conclude that there was no abuse of discretion or clear error, and therefore,
   we AFFIRM.

                                           4