ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
chappie342
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-AD-2579
Plaintiff
v.
Ridgeway State Police
Defendant
ORDER
This matter came before the court when the Plaintiffs counsel submitted a Motion for Default Judgment,
after the defense failed to submit a response in a 72 hour timeframe following the submission of the
complaint. Paper motions were filed with a response to the motion being submitted by the defendant.
After reviewing the motions submitted, the motion for default is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On April 3rd, 2024, the Plaintiff submitted an Administrative Claim against the Ridgeway State Police.
The defendant was subsequently summoned, and arrived on April 6th. On April 7th, they were provided
with a 72 hour deadline to respond to the Administrative Complaint, however this deadline elapsed, with
the defense submitting a response 1 hour after the deadline.
A motion for default was subsequently entered by the respondent over the next couple days, and a
response was subsequently filed.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 37(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure delineates the conditions under which a party may seek
default judgment. The rule stipulates:
"When a party, against whom affirmative relief is sought, fails to plead or otherwise defend as outlined
by these rules, and this failure is demonstrated through affidavit or other means, the clerk is directed to
record their default."
State has referenced the three criteria for vacating default judgments, which are as follows: "(1) the
willfulness of the default; (2) the potential prejudice to the opposing party should the default be set
aside; and (3) the presentation of a viable defense." This standard was established in Enron Oil Corp. v.
Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 1993).
ANALYSIS
While it is true that the Plaintiff is completely within Rule 37(a) of the Civil Procedure with their filing
of the Motion for Default, it is integral that we consider the circumstances which constituted the motion.
The defense was allocated a 72 hour deadline to respond to the motion, however this was elapsed by
them with them responding 1 hour after the deadline. In Enron Oil Corp v. Diakuhara, for default to be
granted the default must be willful. However the defense was actively making efforts to submit the
motion, with them only submitting an hour after the deadline. The lack of severity in this transgression
indicates that the default was not willful.
It is because of this that the submission by the State in response is valid, and as such a motion for default
is not necessary.
CONCLUSION
The Motion for Default is denied.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 22nd day of April, 2024.
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT JUDGE
