Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

National Labor Relations Board v. Enjoi Transportation, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

November 20, 2019

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Plaintiff,
v.
ENJOI TRANSPORTATION, LLC, PAULETTE HAMILTON, and GREGORY LYNN, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 20]

          Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court is the National Labor Relations Board's (“NLRB”) Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and the Attorney Verification supporting the allegations set forth in the Complaint. [ECF No. 20].

         The NLRB's motion is GRANTED.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The NLRB filed this case against Enjoi Transportation, LLC (“Enjoi”) and its two principals, Paulette Hamilton (“Hamilton”) and Gregory Lynn (“Lynn”; collectively “Defendants”). Hamilton and Lynn (the “Individual Defendants”) are married and live together.

         The NLRB brings its complaint pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 3001, 3301-3308. It seeks an order: (1) declaring as fraudulent certain transfers of assets from Enjoi to Hamilton and Lynn; (2) commanding Hamilton and Lynn to reimburse Enjoi for fraudulent transfers amounting to $46, 224; and (3) entering judgment against Hamilton and Lynn and in favor of the NLRB in the amount of $10, 043.

         Service of Defendants proved to be difficult due to the Individual Defendants' attempts to actively evade service. For example, when a process server attempted to serve Hamilton at the Individual Defendants' house on November 19, 2018, Lynn refused to accept service on Hamilton's behalf and falsely claimed that she sold him the house and no longer lived there. [See ECF No. 4-6, PageID.480-82]. On December 2, 2018, a different person attempted to serve Hamilton at home. When the process server knocked on the door and announced who she was, she saw Hamilton look out a window near the front door; Hamilton then moved out of sight and did not answer the door. [See ECF No. 4-7, PageID.486].

         Notwithstanding the Individual Defendants' attempts to evade process, the NLRB was able to effectuate service on all Defendants. It served Lynn and Enjoi on November 20, 2018, [see ECF No. 4-6, PageID.482], and it served Hamilton on December 15, 2018, [see ECF No. 9, PageID.513].

         Once served, Defendants did not answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within the time allotted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i). In fact, Defendants still have not answered the complaint.

         On January 15, 2019 - per the NLRB's requests - the Clerk of this Court entered a “Clerk's Entry of Default” as to Defendants.

         On February 4, 2019, NLRB filed the underlying Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendants. It also filed a motion to hold the Individual Defendants in contempt for failing to comply with a Protective Restraining Order (“PRO”) previously entered by the Court.

         Before the Court ruled on the motions, the parties jointly requested - and the Court granted - a stay of the proceedings so the Individual Defendants could attempt to bring themselves into compliance with the PRO. Although the NLRB attempted to work with them, the Individual Defendants continued to be evasive and failed to bring themselves into compliance with the PRO, causing the NLRB to move for an order reinstituting the motion for contempt.

         On May 15, 2019, the Court held a show cause hearing. During the hearing, the Individual Defendants provided the NLRB with the information required under the PRO, and the NLRB withdrew its contempt motion.

         During the hearing, Defendants requested that they be given time to respond to the outstanding Motion for Entry of Default Judgment. Although Defendants' response was nearly three months overdue, the Court granted their request and gave them until June 14, 2019 to file a response. The Court also advised Defendants that Enjoi could not proceed pro se and needed legal counsel to appear on its behalf.

         On June 14, 2019, Defendants moved for a 30-day extension to respond to the NLRB's motion, stating that Hamilton had been in the hospital for seven days and that they needed additional time to retain legal counsel. The Court granted Defendants' request.

         On July 15, 2019, the Individual Defendants filed a two-page response to the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment. The NLRB replied.

         III. ANALYSIS

         Although the Individual Defendants only filed a response to the NLRB's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, the first paragraph of their response asks the Court to “set aside the entry of default judgment (sic).” The Clerk entered default against Defendants, but no default judgment has entered. Because the Individual Defendants are proceeding pro se, the Court construes their response liberally as a request to set aside the Clerk's entries of default. See Spotts v. United States, 429 F.3d 248, 250 (6th Cir. 2005).

         A. Legal Standard

         Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), “[t]he court may set aside an entry of default for good cause.” Id.; see also O.J. Distrib., Inc. v. Hornell Brewing Co., 340 F.3d 345, 353 (6th Cir. 2003).

         The criteria used to determine whether “good cause” has been shown for purposes of setting aside an entry of default are whether: (1) the default was willful (i.e., defendant's culpable conduct led to the default); (2) setting aside the default would prejudice plaintiff; and (3) defendant has a meritorious defense. O.J. Distrib., Inc., 340 F.3d at 353 n.3. The Sixth Circuit has “found that a district court abuses its discretion in denying a motion to set aside an entry of default when two of the three factors have been demonstrated by the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.