Search

The article offers tips for defense attorneys for how to maximize odds of successfully using or defending for obtaining a default judgment. It mentions that default judgments play a critical role in modern litigation as it compels the defendant's for timely response to the plaintiff's complaint. It also mentions the method for securing a defensible default judgment too comply with applicable rules of civil procedure in the jurisdiction and under the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The article discusses court cases that affected the Wisconsin's default judgment law for safeguarding the interest of justice and provides relief from default judgment by Casper v. American International and Miller v. Hanover Insurance case. The Wisconsin Statutes' sections 806.02(1) and 801.15(2) states that default judgment "may be rendered" when defendant has not joined the issue and late answer should not be permitted unless court finds "excusable neglect" respectively.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court case Thomas Cook UK Ltd. v. Maesbury Homes, Inc., for the Middle District of Florida, wherein action against defendant Maesbury Homes Inc. was filed by plaintiff for breach of contract, account stated, and open account in context to contracts for rental of defendant's villa. The plaintiff filed motion for default judgment. It was held that plaintiff's breach of contract claim was sufficiently alleged, and the plaintiff's motion was granted.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court case Tom v. S.B., Inc., for the District of New Mexico, wherein wrongful death action against owner and driver of commercial truck and their insurers, defendants, was filed by plaintiff survivor of a motor vehicle accident. It informs that the plaintiff has filed motion for entry of default judgment and to extend discovery against defendants. The plaintiff's motion for default judgment was denied, whereas the motion to extend discovery was granted.

The article presents information on the case Craigslist, Inc. v. Hubert of the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California, California, in which action against the defendant was brought by the plaintiff in violation of the U.S. Copyright Act, the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The defendant filed motion to vacate default judgment which has entered against him. The defendant's motion was denied in a final decision.

The article presents information on the case Klein v. U.S. of the U.S. District Court for Western District of New York in New York in which action against the defendant was brought by the plaintiff who sought claims to recover funds. It informs that the parties have settled their claims, and counterclaim-defendant filed motion to vacate the default judgment. The counterclaim-defendant's motion was granted in a final decision.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court case International Painters & Allied Trades v. Lasalle in which action against the defendant was filed by the plaintiffs who sought legal and equitable relief under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 as amended by Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA). The plaintiffs filed motion for judgment by default, and the plaintiffs were entitled by the court for default judgment. The plaintiffs' motion was granted.

The article presents information on the U.S. District Court case International Painters & Allied v. Brighton Paint. in which action against the defendant was brought by the plaintiffs for breach of collective bargaining agreements (CBA) and related agreements. The plaintiffs filed motion for default judgment, and the plaintiffs were entitled by the court for default judgment. The plaintiffs' motion was granted by the court.

The article presents information on the U.S. District Court case Felts v. Accredited Collection Agency, Inc. in which action against the defendants was brought by the plaintiff for the violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (NMUPA). The defendants filed motion to set aside judgment. Setting aside of default judgment was held inappropriate by the court and the defendants' motions was denied.

The article presents information on a case Buckley v. Paperboy Ventures, LLC of the U.S. District Court, Washington D.C. in which action against a defendant was brought by a plaintiff for breach of contract. The plaintiff filed motion for entry of default judgment, and it was held by the court that the amount of damages was uncertain and thus entry of default judgment was held unwarranted. The plaintiff's motion was denied by the court.