Reported / Citable
Background
Judy Soto filed this vehicle-accident action on December 4, 2025, and served defendant Danny Herman Trucking, Inc. on December 10. The company notified its insurer three business days later, but no answer was filed by the December 31 deadline.
After Soto sought default, the clerk entered default on January 5, 2026. Danny Herman moved four days later to set aside that entry and for leave to file a late answer. Its insurer explained that it had not retained defense counsel until January 7 because of inadvertence and holiday-related absences.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Xavier Rodriguez granted both motions, set aside the clerk’s entry of default, and directed the clerk to file Danny Herman’s proposed answer and exhibits.
The court found good cause under Rule 55(c). The default was not willful because the company promptly notified its insurer; Soto would suffer no cognizable prejudice beyond having to prove her case; and Danny Herman acted expeditiously after default was entered. The court also found excusable neglect under Rule 6(b)(1)(B), emphasizing the short delay, lack of prejudice, the insurer’s inadvertence and holiday-related absences, and the absence of any indication of bad faith.
Key Takeaways
- A prompt effort to cure a nonwillful default can support relief under Rule 55(c).
- Requiring a plaintiff to litigate and prove the case is not, by itself, prejudice from vacating an entry of default.
- A short missed-answer deadline caused by insurer inadvertence and holiday-related absences may constitute excusable neglect.
Why It Matters
The order reflects the Fifth Circuit’s preference for resolving cases on their merits, particularly where a defendant acts quickly and the plaintiff identifies no litigation prejudice. It also shows that relief from a clerk’s entry of default may be paired with leave to file a late answer when the same circumstances establish excusable neglect.