Hansen v. Cassagnol

Full title: KAREN HANSEN and CHRISTOPHER W. HEDRICK, Plaintiffs, v. CAROLINE CASSAGNOL…

Court: United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Date published: Feb 9, 2010

No. CIV 09-0424 JB/GBW (D.N.M. Feb. 9, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV 09-0424 JB/GBW.

February 9, 2010

Randolph B. Felker, Felker Ish Ritchie Geer PA, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.

Mark T. Pound, Long, Pound Komer, PA, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendant.

ORDER

JAMES BROWNING, District Judge

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for Default Judgment, filed August 3, 2009 (Doc. 23). The Court held a hearing on February 3, 2010. The primary issue is whether the Court should enter default judgment on Defendant Caroline Cassagnol's counterclaims against Plaintiffs Karen Hansen and Christopher Hedrick because the Plaintiffs failed to timely answer the counterclaims. The Plaintiffs filed their Answer two days after Cassagnol filed the motion. See Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant's Counterclaims, filed August 5, 2009 (Doc. 24). Because the Plaintiffs have answered the counterclaims, and because the Court favors deciding the case on the merits, the Court will deny the motion.

"Default judgments are a harsh sanction." In re Rains, 946 F.2d 731, 732 (10th Cir. 1991). Because default judgment is a harsh sanction involving a court's power to enter and enforce judgments regardless of the merits of a case, courts do not favor such a sanction "purely as a penalty for delays in filing or other procedural error." Id. at 733.

Strong policies favor resolution of disputes on their merits:

"[T]he default judgment must normally be viewed as available only when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party. In that instance, the diligent party must be protected lest he be faced with interminable delay and continued uncertainty as to his rights. The default judgment remedy serves as such a protection."

In re Rains, 946 F.2d at 732-33 (quoting H.F. Livermore Corp. v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder Loepfe, 432 F.2d 689, 691 (D.C. Cir. 1970)). The Plaintiffs' counsel has filed an answer to the counterclaims, and the Court cannot reasonably say that the Plaintiffs are an essentially unresponsive party, that the adversary process has been halted, or that Cassagnol faces interminable delay because of the Plaintiffs' actions. Because the Plaintiffs have answered the counterclaims and have otherwise manifested an intent to litigate this case, the Court finds no sound basis to justify granting the motion for default judgment.

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion for Default Judgment is denied.