Dolley v. Sallie Mae Bank

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
In re:
Willa M. Dolley
Debtor
Chapter 7
Case No. 25-10201
Willa M. Dolley
Plaintiff
v.
Sallie Mae Bank
Defendant
Adversary Proceeding
No. 25-01003
ORDER (I) SETTING ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND
(II) SCHEDULING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE WITH RELATED DEADLINES
The summons that was served on the defendant in this adversary proceeding set a
deadline by which the defendant must file (not just serve) an answer or motion in response to the
complaint [Dkt. No. 5]. 	After the defendant failed to do so, the clerk entered a default against
the defendant [Dkt. No. 9]. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055. 	In a prominent
warning, the summons itself had previewed such a consequence.
Within a few days of the default’s entry, the defendant filed a Consent Motion to Lift
Default [Dkt. No. 14]. 	In the motion, the defendant explains that the plaintiff had agreed to
extend the defendant’s deadline to respond to the complaint and that the defendant had “assumed
[that] it would be fine to answer the complaint within the agreed upon extended period without
issue.” 	That assumption was incorrect here. 	Because the docket had contained no indication of
the parties’ agreement (and no indication that the defendant intended to participate in this
Case 25-01003 Doc 24 Filed 02/11/26 Entered 02/11/26 13:22:14 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 2

2
adversary proceeding), the defendant’s seeming disregard for the deadline led ultimately to the
entry of a default.1
In addition to filing the motion, the defendant has also since filed its answer [Dkt. No. 21]
to the complaint. 	In the circumstances, and given the plaintiff’s consent, the Court finds good
cause for setting aside the entry of the default. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c); Indigo Am., Inc. v. Big
Impressions, LLC, 597 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2010) (summarizing Rule 55(c) standard and listing
nonexclusive factors that courts may consider). 	The defendant’s motion is granted accordingly.
In an order dated January 20, 2026, the Court canceled a pretrial conference that had been
scheduled in this adversary proceeding and suspended the deadlines for the parties to confer and
to file a report under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) [Dkt. No. 10]. 	Given the
developments above, the Court now reschedules the pretrial conference and sets the following
related deadlines.
The Court will hold a pretrial conference in this adversary proceeding at 1:00 p.m. on
March 26, 2026, at the United States Bankruptcy Court, 202 Harlow Street, Bangor, Maine. 	The
parties must confer under Rule 26(f) no later than March 5, 2026. 	The parties must file their
written report under Rule 26(f) within 14 days of conferring (but no later than March 19, 2026).2
Dated: February 11, 2026
Michael A. Fagone
United States Bankruptcy Judge
District of Maine
1 Unlike the entry of a default judgment (the second step in the process of obtaining relief by default), the
rules do not expressly require a request from a party before a mere default is entered (the first step in the
process). 	Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b), with Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
2 As noted in the order dated January 20, the Court does not anticipate issuing a scheduling order by the
general deadline to do so and again finds good cause for the delay, given the circumstances here. 	See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2).
Case 25-01003 Doc 24 Filed 02/11/26 Entered 02/11/26 13:22:14 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 2