MAJOR DRILLING AMERICA, INC. v. REDEMPTION ENERGY, LLC, 4:13-cv-048. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. North Dakota
Number: infdco20130605b19
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jun. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2013
Summary: ORDER CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr., Magistrate Judge. On May 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment and Motion for Bill of Costs (Statement of Costs and Disbursements). On May 17, 2013, defendant filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint along with a response in opposition to plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. It is well established that default judgments are not favored by the law. United States v. Harre, 983 F.2d 128 , 130 (8th Cir. 1993). Rather, there is a "judicial pre
Summary: ORDER CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr., Magistrate Judge. On May 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment and Motion for Bill of Costs (Statement of Costs and Disbursements). On May 17, 2013, defendant filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint along with a response in opposition to plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. It is well established that default judgments are not favored by the law. United States v. Harre, 983 F.2d 128 , 130 (8th Cir. 1993). Rather, there is a "judicial pref..
More
ORDER
CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
On May 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment and Motion for Bill of Costs (Statement of Costs and Disbursements). On May 17, 2013, defendant filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint along with a response in opposition to plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment.
It is well established that default judgments are not favored by the law. United States v. Harre, 983 F.2d 128, 130 (8th Cir. 1993). Rather, there is a "judicial preference for adjudication on the merits." Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 140 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1998). Here, plaintiff has suffered no appreciable prejudice by defendant's delay in filing its answer. Plaintiff's motions (Docket Nos. 6 and 11) are therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
