United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
D. DICK UNITED DISTRICT STATES JUDGE.
matter is before the court on the Motion to Set Aside
Entry of Default filed by Defendants, Burnell Thompson,
III, Douglas Thompson, Daryl Davis, and Lanny Bergeron,
(collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff filed a
Request for Entry of Default  on October 2,
2017. The Clerk of Court entered an Order of
Default against the Defendants on the same day.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the following day
and the instant Motion to vacate the entry of
default. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants
Motion as required by Local Rule 7(f). Accordingly, the
Court finds that Plaintiff has no opposition to the relief
requested in the Defendants' Motion.
LAW & ANALYSIS
general, the Fifth Circuit has stated that, “[d]efault
judgments are ‘generally disfavored in the law and thus
should not be granted on the claim, without more, that the
defendant had failed to meet a procedural time
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(c) and 60(b), a district
court may set aside an entry of default or default judgment
for ‘good cause.'” In determining whether good
cause exists, the Fifth Circuit has delineated three factors
to consider: 1) whether the default was willful, 2) whether
setting it aside would prejudice the adversary, and 3)
whether a meritorious defense is presented. Other factors the
court may consider include whether the defendant acted
expeditiously to correct the default. “While courts apply
essentially the same standard to motions to set aside a
default and a judgment by default, the former is more readily
granted than a motion to set aside a default
their Opposition, Defendants attribute the delay in
filing responsive pleadings to a delay between service of
process and notification to counsel of record. Specifically,
Defendants assert that the delay in notification was caused
by Plaintiff's failure to serve the Louisiana Department
of Public Safety and Corrections, the Office of Risk
Management, and the Louisiana Attorney General. This issue is
currently pending before the Court and will be addressed
accordingly. Second, Defendants contend that the Plaintiff
will not be unduly prejudiced by vacating the default. This
contention is further supported by Plaintiff's decision
not to oppose the instant Motion. Finally,
Defendants assure the Court that the delay in filing
responsive pleadings was in no way willful and have since
filed meritorious defenses in their pending Motion to
into account the assertions made in Defendants'
Opposition and Plaintiff's failure to oppose
this motion, the Court finds that Defendants' failure to
timely file responsive pleadings was not willful in nature.
Defendants filed responsive pleadings one day after the
clerk's entry of default, thus presenting a meritorious
defense to Plaintiff's complaint. The Court also finds
that the Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by setting aside
the entry of default. There is nothing to support the entry
of default besides Defendants failure to meet the requirement
of a timely answer.
reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion to Set
Aside Clerk's Entry of Default is GRANTED.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Rec. Doc. 16.
 Rec. Doc. 10.