IN THE RIDGEWAY STATE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
SNIPERALLSTAR1,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRINZBAKYL,
Defendant,
CASE NO. RSC-CV-3297
PLEADING: HON. BOMMES
MOTION TO RECONSIDER VACATE JUDGMENT BY
DEFAULT
COME NOW, Plaintiff SniperAllStar1, by and through counsel, hereby submits this motion
to reconsider the Court's order granting the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate the default judgment
entered against the Plaintiff on August 6th, 2024.
DEFAULT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND
According to Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedures Rules 37,
“When a party against
whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as
provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk
shall enter his default.”
ARGUMENT
I. DEFENDANT FAILED TO ASSERT DEFENSIVE PLEAD TO PLAINTIFF’S
ALLEGATIONS
The Plaintiff has complied with all procedural requirements by properly serving
Defendant PrinzBakyl and adhering to the deadlines established by the Court. The Defendant’s
failure to act within the prescribed period demonstrates a disregard for the procedural rules and
the Court’s orders. This failure is sufficient to warrant the entry of default under Rule 37. It is well
LAW OFFICES OF SAWYERIEZ, P.A.
-1-
established that the entry of default is appropriate when a party neglects to respond within the
designated time frame. The Plaintiff has duly notified the Court of the Defendant’s
non-compliance and provided evidence that the response was due on August 1, 2024, by
Magistrate Bommes, and has not been filed.
II. GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT IS PREJUDICIAL TO
THE PLAINTIFF
A. Delay in Proceedings
Denying the motion would result in further delay of the proceedings. The Plaintiff’s ability
to move forward with the case and seek resolution would be hindered, impacting the efficiency
of the legal process and potentially prolonging the Plaintiff’s uncertainty and litigation costs.
B. Lack of Remedy
Without the entry of default, the Plaintiff will be deprived of an immediate remedy for the
Defendant’s failure to respond. The entry of default is a procedural mechanism to address
non-compliance and enable the Plaintiff to seek judgment without further delay. Denial of the
motion results to the Plaintiff will face an extended postponement in obtaining a resolution,
which could impact their ability to participate effectively in the trial.
C. Default Judgment procedures are violated
The Plaintiff’s right to Default is prejudiced. Due to the courts allowing the Defendant to
delay or evade the proceedings. The Defendant’s failure to respond signifies a lack of respect for
the court’s authority and due process. Denial of the motion might embolden the Defendant to
persist in their non-compliance, undermining the Plaintiff’s chances of a timely and fair
adjudication.
LAW OFFICES OF SAWYERIEZ, P.A.
-2-
III. DEFENDANT FAILURES TO MEET S.E.C V. MCNULTY REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT
See
S.E.C. v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732, 738 (2d Cir. 1998), “In deciding a motion to vacate a
default judgment, the district court is to be guided principally by three factors: (1) whether the
default was willful, (2) whether the defendant, demonstrates the existence of a meritorious
defense, and (3) whether, and to what extent, vacating the default will cause the non defaulting
party prejudice.” (citation omitted). All three factors stated do not qualify for Defendant's Motion
to Vacate. Plaintiff’s default was issued after the Defendant was given 5 days to respond, and
Defendant failed to assert any sort of defense to the civil complaint, and (3) vacating default is
prejudicial to the Plaintiff. Allotting more time for the Defendant to potentially evade an
admission of liability. Pushing this trial further back then it is now. Defendant was issued plenty
of time (5 days) to respond to the Plaintiff’s civil complaint. It should not be placed on the
Plaintiff to await longer. Awarding the Defendant contempt of a five hundred dollar fine ($500) is
not equivalent to the time wasted by the Defendant. To respond to the Plaintiff’s civil complaint.
IV. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS AN ABUSE OF JUDICIAL
DISCRETION
A.
Baldwin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 331 U.S. 159 (1947)
The Supreme Court examined the principles governing default judgments and the criteria
for their issuance. It was determined that a denial of a default judgment, despite clear and
uncontroverted evidence of a defendant's default, is subject to appellate review for abuse of
discretion. Specifically, if the denial disregards established facts demonstrating the defendant's
LAW OFFICES OF SAWYERIEZ, P.A.
-3-
failure to respond to the Plaintiff’s complaint and compliance with procedural requirements, such
a denial is deemed an abuse of discretion. The Court held that when the evidence unequivocally
shows the defendant’s default and all procedural conditions are satisfied, any denial of default
judgment without a substantial and valid reason is considered an abuse of judicial discretion.
B.
Miller v. Carlson, 688 F.2d 370 (8th Cir. 1982)
The appellate court determined that the trial court’s denial of the default judgment
constituted an abuse of discretion. The Eighth Circuit found that the trial judge improperly
applied the relevant legal standards and failed to adequately assess the facts that clearly
established Carlson’s default. This oversight in evaluating the uncontroverted evidence and
adhering to procedural rules led the appellate court to conclude that the trial court’s decision
was erroneous and unjust.
C.
Fritz v. Waite, 394 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1968)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a trial court’s refusal to grant a default
judgment may constitute an abuse of discretion if the judge disregards established procedural
rules or fails to apply the appropriate legal standards. The appellate court emphasized that a
denial of default judgment must be examined for abuse of discretion when the trial court's
decision is inconsistent with the procedural and legal requirements governing default judgments.
Such a denial is deemed an abuse of discretion if it results from a failure to adhere to the
prescribed legal criteria or procedural mandates.
V. SERVICES OF SUMMONS WAS AUTHORIZED
See Rid. R. Civ. P. R. 4(a), “Upon commencing the action the plaintiff or his attorney
shall deliver a copy of the complaint and a summons for service to the sheriff, deputy sheriff,
LAW OFFICES OF SAWYERIEZ, P.A.
-4-
any other person duly authorized by law; a person specifically appointed to serve them; or as
otherwise provided in subdivision (c) of this rule” His honor. Magistrate bommes, authorized
Plaintiff’s attorney of record to serve the Defendant. As an attorney is an officer of the court.
See
People v. Williams (1962), 58 Cal.2d 865, the California Supreme Court discussed the role
of attorneys as officers of the court in the context of their ethical and professional duties.
“Attorneys are officers of the court and are subject to its disciplinary powers. Their
professional conduct is thus regulated to ensure that they act with integrity and in
accordance with the law.” (citation omitted).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff respectfully submits this motion for reconsideration of the default judgment
previously entered. The Defendant has failed to plead or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff’s civil
complaint, thus defaulting under the applicable procedural rules. Allowing additional time for the
Defendant to file a defense would result in undue prejudice to the Plaintiff, who has already been
subjected to unnecessary delays. Furthermore, such an extension would contravene the
principles of due process by unjustifiably prolonging the resolution of the matter. Just because
the Defense’s writ of certiorari and motion to quash service was denied, does not grant the courts
to accept this motion to vacate judgment. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the
motion to reconsider and proceed to award the Plaintiff the relief sought by default judgment.
The interests of justice and the Plaintiff’s right to timely resolution of this matter support
granting the relief requested.
LAW OFFICES OF SAWYERIEZ, P.A.
-5-
August 5th, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sawyeriez
Sawyeriez, Esq.
R. Bar No. 25105
Counsel of Record
Managing Partner
Law Offices of Sawyeriez, P.A.
975 Dana St
Oakland, Ridgeway
Discord:
@ski019
Attorney for Plaintiff
LAW OFFICES OF SAWYERIEZ, P.A.
-6-
