ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN ANSWER AND DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

TIM A. BAKER, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Indinar Buford moved for an entry of default. Before the Clerk made the entry, Defendant Corporate Cleaning Systems, Inc. requested leave to file an answer to Buford's first amended complaint. For the reasons noted below, the Court grants CCS's motion for leave to file an answer to Buford's first amended complaint [Filing No. 35] and denies as moot Buford's motion for entry of default. [Filing No. 30.]

The Court has a strong preference for deciding suits on their merits. While circumstances may justify resolving cases by default, the facts here do not rise to that level. CCS submitted an affidavit from its interim president, Kenneth Dario, showing internal confusion regarding a tender of defense of a co-defendant and whether CCS or its insurance company was responsible for answering the complaint. [Filing No. 39, at ECF p. 3, ¶¶ 13-14; Filing No. 40, at ECF pp. 2-3.] CCS submitted its motion for leave to file an answer eight days after Buford served his motion for default.1 Additionally, CCS requested leave only until November 3, 2017, to file its answer. [Filing No. 35, at ECF p. 2, ¶ 6.] Furthermore, a default judgment would be ill advised because CCS's reply brief outlines a number of reasons why liability in this matter is not a foregone conclusion. [Filing No. 39, at ECF p. 5, ¶ 22.]

Therefore, the Court grants CCS's motion. [Filing No. 35.] CCS is given seven days from the date of this order to file an answer or other response. As a result, the Court denies Buford's motion [Filing No. 30] as moot.