Forehand et al v. Ali et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHERLYN AND CARL FOREHAND, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-24-1227-D
)
SIDDEEQ MUHAMMAD ALI, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant NAS Logistics, LLC’s (NAS) Unopposed Motion to
Vacate Clerk’s Entry of Default [Doc. No. 23]. NAS asks the Court to set aside the Clerk’s
Entry of Default [Doc. No. 16] entered against it on March 27, 2025. As indicated by the
title of NAS’s Motion, Plaintiffs do not oppose the requested relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) provides that an entry of default may be set aside for “good
cause.” A court may consider, among other factors, “whether the default was willful,
whether setting it aside would prejudice the adversary, and whether a meritorious defense
is presented.” Pinson v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., Inc., 316 F. App’x 744, 750 (10th Cir.
2009) (citation omitted); accord Guttman v. Silverberg, 167 F. App’x 1, 3 (10th Cir. 2005).
“These factors are not ‘talismanic,’” and the Court does not have to consider them all and
may consider others. Hunt v. Ford Motor Co., 65 F.3d 178, 178 (10th Cir. 1995).
Considering the factors at issue here, along with the established policy that default
judgments are a harsh sanction and generally disfavored, the Court finds that vacating the
Clerk’s Entry of Default is appropriate. Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced, at least not in the
Case 5:24-cv-01227-D Document 24 Filed 06/02/25 Page 1 of 3

2
manner required under a Rule 55(c) analysis. See SecurityNational Mortg. Co. v. Head, No.
13–cv–03020–PAB–BNB, 2014 WL 4627483, at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 15, 2014) (“There is
no prejudice to the plaintiff where the setting aside of the default has done no harm to
plaintiff except to require it to prove its case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). And
NAS appears to have a meritorious defense to Plaintiffs’ claims, as it contends that the
involved driver was no longer working for NAS at the time of the subject accident. See
NAS Mot. at 3; see also Kahler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 20–cv–01536–WJM–KMT,
2020 WL 7335714, at *4 (D. Colo. Dec. 14, 2020) (“The underlying concern is to
determine whether there is some possibility that the outcome of the suit after a full trial
will be contrary to the result achieved by the default.” (quoting Resol. Tr. Corp. v. Colo.
126 P'ship, 746 F. Supp. 35, 37 (D. Colo. 1990))).1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that NAS’s Unopposed Motion to Vacate Clerk’s
Entry of Default [Doc. No. 23] is GRANTED. The Clerk’s Entry of Default [Doc. No. 16]
against NAS is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NAS shall answer or otherwise respond to
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 17] on or before June 16, 2025. NAS
shall also file a Corporate Disclosure Statement by the same deadline. See LCvR7.1.1.
1 To be sure, Plaintiffs’ non-opposition factors heavily into the Court’s conclusion.
Case 5:24-cv-01227-D Document 24 Filed 06/02/25 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 2025.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:24-cv-01227-D Document 24 Filed 06/02/25 Page 3 of 3