Shaw v. 500516 N.B. Ltd.

5 Citing cases

  1. Sea Salt, LLC v. Bellerose

    2:18-cv-00413-JAW (D. Me. Dec. 28, 2020)

    The record thus establishes that although neither Trustee filed a sworn disclosure under oath within twenty days of service of the August 2018 trustee summons, see M.R. Civ. P. 4B(e); 14 M.R.S. § 2608, PayPal and Coinbase did not ignore the summons, but communicated with Plaintiff regarding the 2018 trustee summons prior to Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and each Trustee otherwise maintained communication throughout this matter. See Shaw v. 500516 N.B. Ltd., 668 F. Supp. 2d 237, 246 (D. Me. 2009) (setting aside a default because, in part, a defaulted party's actions were "more in-line with instances of carelessness than willful disobedience"); Snyder v. Talbot, 836 F. Supp. 26, 29 (D. Me. 1993) (determining a default was not willful where a party "remained in communication with the Court and responded at various points in the litigation"). In short, neither default is the product of the Trustees' willful disregard of the court process or their obligations as a trustee.

  2. Bennett v. Mich. Dep't of Corrs.

    15-cv-14465 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 11, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    As one district court has explained, “[c]ourts tend to view a default as ‘willful' when the defendant shows contempt for the court's procedure or an effort to evade the court's authority.” Shaw v. 500516 N.B. Ltd., 668 F.Supp.2d 237, 247 (D. Me. 2009). Here, Garland is unsophisticated in the law, and Bennett has not persuaded the Court that she willfully chose to avoid responding to the Fourth Amended Complaint or deliberately attempted to “evade the Court's authority.”

  3. United States v. Spring House Assocs., Ltd.

    1:15-cv-00057-JAW (D. Me. Aug. 14, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    In light of Key Bank, this Court has required that a party seeking default produce satisfactory proof that the defaulted party has not appeared in the action within the meaning of Rule 55(b). See Joseph Skilken & Co. v. Oxford Aviation, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00322-JAW, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163662, at *1 (D. Me. Nov. 18, 2013); CSXT Intermodal, Inc. v. Mercury Cartage, LLC, 271 F.R.D. 400, 402 n.1 (D. Me. 2010); Shaw v. 500516 N.B. Ltd., 668 F. Supp. 2d 237, 250 (D. Me. 2009). Before issuing a default judgment, the Court will require the United States to demonstrate compliance with Key Bank.

  4. Brace v. Rite Aid Corp.

    Civil No. 10-cv-290-LM (D.N.H. Sep. 29, 2010)

    Though courts more easily grant motions to set aside defaults, the factors considered in determining "good cause" are essentially the same as the factors courts consider in deciding Rule 60(b) motions to vacate default judgments. See, e.g., Shaw v. 500576 N.B. Ltd., 668 F.Supp.2d 237, 244 (D. Me. 2209). Those factors include: (1) whether the default was willful; (2) whether setting it aside would prejudice the adversary; (3) whether a meritorious defense is presented; (4) the nature of the defendant's explanation for the default; (5) the good faith of the parties; (6) the amount of money involved; and (7) the timing of the motion.

  5. Alli v. United States

    No. 01-669 C (Fed. Cl. Jun. 11, 2010)

    See, e.g., Delange v. Curbow, 2010 WL 1936202, at *2 (N.D. Ind. May 12, 2010); Wolf Lake Terminals, Inc. v. Mut. Marine Ins. Co., 433 F. Supp. 2d 933, 941 (N.D. Ind. 2005); Wilson v. Winstead, 84 F.R.D. 218, 219 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).See, e.g., Shaw v. 500516 N.B. Ltd., 668 F. Supp. 2d 237, 244-45 (D. Me. 2009); Cameron v. Myers, 569 F. Supp. 2d 762, 764 (N.D. Ind. 2008).Penpower Tech. Ltd. v. S.P.C. Tech., 627 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1088-89 (N.D. Cal. 2008); United States v. Suganuma, 546 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1001 (D. Haw. 2008); Opta Sys., 483 F. Supp. 2d at 406.