Reported / Citable
Background
Jacquetta Clayton, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Amazon.com Services, LLC to vacate an arbitration award that had dismissed her negligence claims. She alleged evident partiality, procedural misconduct, and Amazon’s failure to follow required arbitration procedures, and she sought more than $1 million in damages.
Amazon was served on April 3, 2025, but did not respond within the prescribed time. Clayton moved for default judgment on May 19. Amazon subsequently answered, asserted affirmative defenses, and opposed default judgment. Clayton then moved to strike Amazon’s answer and defenses as untimely and requested a hearing on default judgment.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford recommended denying default judgment. Clayton had not obtained the clerk’s entry of default required before seeking default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. Amazon’s acknowledged late response did not entitle Clayton to judgment as a matter of right, particularly because Amazon had appeared and answered.
The magistrate judge also concluded that default judgment was unwarranted given the amount at stake, the parties’ disputes over material facts, and the policy favoring decisions on the merits. She further recommended denying Clayton’s motion to strike because Amazon’s res judicata and collateral-estoppel defenses related to the controversy and provided fair notice. The requested default-judgment hearing therefore should be terminated as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff ordinarily cannot obtain default judgment without first securing an entry of default from the clerk.
- A late answer does not create an automatic right to default judgment, especially when the defendant has appeared and the dispute should be resolved on the merits.
- Amazon’s res judicata and collateral-estoppel defenses were sufficiently related to the case and pleaded with enough particularity to survive a Rule 12(f) motion.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores that default judgment is a disfavored, drastic remedy rather than an automatic consequence of a missed response deadline. Litigants must follow Rule 55’s sequential requirements, and courts may decline default relief when the defendant has appeared and substantial factual or monetary issues remain contested.
The decision also illustrates the narrow role of Rule 12(f): untimeliness alone did not justify striking affirmative defenses that were relevant and gave the plaintiff fair notice. Because this was a magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation, the district judge retained authority to accept, reject, or modify it after the objection period.