Opinion
Civil Action 19-CV-434
04-22-2021
BRIDGEPOINT CAPITAL, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DANA CARVELL, et al., Defendant
ORDER
MARYGAY KENNEDY, JUSTICE
Before the court is Plaintiff's Request for Default against Defendant G. Charles Shumway and Defendant Shumway's Motion for Late Entry. Shumway's previous Motion to Dismiss was denied by this court on December 7, 2020. Pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 12(a), Shumway had ten (10) days from December 7 in which to file an Answer. Shumway's Answer was not filed until December 31, 2020 (the court is aware that Shumway's Answer was rejected by the court clerk on December 30, 2 020). Shumway made no attempt to file an Answer within the time permitted and is therefore in default. However, the court received Shumway's Answer prior to the Plaintiffs Request for Default. In the interest of judicial economy, the court ordered that Shumway provide the court with written explanation as to why Default should not be entered. Shumway had seven (7) days from January 22, 2021 to file his explanation. The court held that it would only consider such evidence as would be relevant pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 55(c). See also Truman v. Browne, 2001 ME 182, ¶ 9, 788 A.2d 168 (requiring a party to show both a good excuse and a meritorious defense to set aside default under Rule 55(c)).
Shumway did not file his response until February 3, 2021, outside the time permitted by the court's Procedural Order. Shumway's late response states that he was mistaken on when he was required to file an Answer because he followed the wrong time requirements of Rule 12. Nevertheless, Shumway argues that default should not enter because he has been actively engaged in this litigation for more than a year.
Procedural requirements appear to have been at issue for Shumway throughout this case, The Plaintiff alleged in its Opposition to Shumway's original Motion to Dismiss that Shumway failed to properly serve the Motion on the Plaintiff. The court is also aware that there were various complications between the court clerk and Shumway regarding the filing of his Motion to Dismiss and Answer. Shumway's late filing here cannot be viewed in isolation. Under the totality of the circumstances presented, the court cannot hold that Mr. Shumway's mistaken reliance on Rule 12 rises to the level of good excuse required under M.R. Civ. P. 55(c).
The entry is:
Defendant's Motion for Late Entry is DENTED.
Plaintiff's Motion for Default is GRANTED.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).