Jackson Jambalaya

The U.S. District Court set aside Mike Crook's entry of default in his lawsuit against the City of Ridgeland, its Mayor, and several police officers for his arrest two years ago. Mr. Crook and his wife filed suit earlier this year seeking $700,000 in damages. Phelps Dunbar, the firm representing the defendants, requested additional time to answer the complaint, which the judge granted. The answer was due June 21, 2010. No answer was filed for an additional two weeks. Mr. Crook filed an application for default and the clerk entered a default in the case. However, the court had not yet awarded a default judgment. Phelps Dunbar filed its answer several minutes after the default was entered by the clerk. Mr. Crook filed a motion with the arguing the court should grant him a judgment. It should be noted the Crooks are representing themselves.

The court gave serious consideration to the fact the attorney working the case was suddenly forced to leave the office as she had a child who required immediate surgery. The court stated "contrary to plaintiffs’ contention otherwise, defendants’ failure to timely answer was neither willful nor intentional but rather was merely inadvertent." The court also ruled the Crooks would suffer little harm in that "the only prejudice that the Crooks allege to have suffered is the time spent researching their motion for the clerk’s entry of default and the fact that, if the court sets asides the entry of default and allows defendants to answer, they will have to litigate their claims. This simply is not the type of prejudice contemplated by law." Order, Plaintiff's response to Defendant's objection

Numerous attorneys informed me after I first posted about the case the judge would take the action it did in this ruling. Judges like to hear the cases on their merits and are loathe to see them decided on technicalities such as deadlines. It is also no secret judges tend to be a little more harsh in their dealings with parties representing themselves. Mr. Crook also filed yesterday a Motion to Strike All Pleadings filed since June 21. Copy of motion. The Crooks argue the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the responses and motions filed by the defendants after June 21 because they did not seek permission from the court first to file them after the June 21 deadline. It pretty clear Judge Lee wants the case to proceed to a trial or settlement and will thus probably deny this motion as well.