Bland v. Mercy Hospital

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
YOUVETTE D. BLAND, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:25CV533 HEA
)
MERCY HOSPITAL, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment,
[Doc. No. 12]. Defendant has not responded to the Motion. For the reasons set
forth below, the Motion will be granted.
Facts and Background
Plaintiff filed her pro se Complaint on April 16, 2025 alleging she was
discriminated in her employment with Defendant based on her race and age, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§
2000e, et seq. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq., respectively.
Defendant was served with the Complaint on May 15, 2025. Defendant did
not respond to the summons and on July 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Case: 4:25-cv-00533-HEA Doc. #: 16 Filed: 12/16/25 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Entry of Clerk’s Default. The Clerk of Court’s Enty of Default was entered on
August 8, 2025.
On August 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Default Judgment. A
hearing on this motion was held on October 30, 2025. Defendant did not appear at
this hearing.
Discussion
The pursuit of a default judgment under Rule 55 involves “a two-step
process.” United States v. Yennie, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1194, 1198 (D. Minn. 2022);
accord Helena Agri-Enters., LLC v. Lewis, No. 4:24-cv-00544-LPR, 2025 WL
636434, *1 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 27, 2025). In this case, as mentioned, the Clerk entered
a default against Defendant under Rule 55(a), thereby “completing the first step”
toward a potential default judgment. Webster Indus., Inc. v. Northwood Doors, Inc.,
244 F. Supp. 2d 998, 1003 (N.D. Iowa 2003). The question now is whether this
Court “should ... take the second step ... by entering default judgment” against
Defendant on Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 55(b)(2). Id. at 1003–04.
“Default judgments, however, are not favored by the law,” United States v.
Harre, 983 F.2d 128, 130 (8th Cir. 1993)—and “ ‘should be a rare judicial act,”
Belcourt Pub. Sch. Dist. v. Davis, 786 F.3d 653, 661 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting In re
Jones Truck Lines, Inc., 63 F.3d 685, 688 (8th Cir. 1995))—given the “ ‘judicial
preference for adjudication on the merits,’ ” Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 140
Case: 4:25-cv-00533-HEA Doc. #: 16 Filed: 12/16/25 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
F.3d 781, 784 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Oberstar v. F.D.I.C., 987 F.2d 494, 504 (8th
Cir. 1993)). The entry of default thus “raises no protectable expectation that a
default judgment will follow,” Johnson, 140 F.3d at 785, and whether it does or not
is a decision “committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Harre, 983
F.2d at 130 (citing F.T.C. v. Packers Brand Meats, Inc., 562 F.2d 9, 10 (8th Cir.
1977) (per curiam)); see Wright v. Smith, No. 4:21-cv-00536-BSM-JTK, 2022 WL
17656445, *5 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 23, 2022) (M.J. Rec.) (“the Court has broad
discretion in determining the circumstances under which a default judgment should
enter”), adopted, 2022 WL 17629798 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 13, 2022).
The court may consider “various factors” when determining whether to enter a
default judgment, including:
[T]he amount of money potentially involved; whether material issues of fact
or issues of substantial public importance are at issue; whether the default is
largely technical; whether plaintiff has been substantially prejudiced by the
delay involved; and whether the grounds for default are clearly established
or are in doubt. Furthermore, the court may consider how harsh an effect a
default judgment might have; or whether the default was caused by a good-
faith mistake or by excusable or inexcusable neglect on the part of the
defendant.
Belcourt, 786 F.3d at 661 (citation omitted). Defendant has completely neglected to
respond in any way to Plaintiff’s action, despite service of process and the entry of
the Clerk’s default. Plaintiff has remained diligent in her case and has taken all the
necessary steps to pursue her action. The Court concludes, based on the record and
the hearing that Plaintiff is entitled to default judgment.
Case: 4:25-cv-00533-HEA Doc. #: 16 Filed: 12/16/25 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded $125,000.00
damages.
A separate judgment in accordance with this Opinion, Memorandum, and
Order is entered this same date.
Dated this 16 th day of December, 2025.
________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-00533-HEA Doc. #: 16 Filed: 12/16/25 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>