Burningham v. Maxway et al

1
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
TAUNEE R. BURNINGHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLAKE MAXFIELD, d/b/a MAXWAY
TRUCKING, REX HICKS d/b/a MAXWAY
TRUCKING, MAXWAY, INC.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
- 	DENYING [ECF NO. 20] MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
AGAINST DEFENDANT BLAKE
MAXFIELD dba MAXWAY
TRUCKING AND
- 	GRANTING [ECF NO. 22]
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
SET ASIDE THE ENTRY OF
DEFAULT AGAINST
DEFENDANT REX HICKS d/b/a
MAXWAY TRUCKING
Case No. 2:25-cv-00726-DBB-DAO
District Judge David Barlow
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Against Defendant Blake
Maxfield1 and Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside the Entry of Default Against Defendant Rex
Hicks.2 Defendants’ motion also contains a response to Plaintiff’s motion.3 Plaintiff filed a
notice of non-opposition.4
1 Mot. for Entry of Default Against Defs. Blake Maxfield dba Maxway Trucking and Maxway, Inc. (“Mot. for
Default”), ECF No. 20, filed October 8, 2025.
2 Mot. to Set Aside the Entry of Default Against Def. Rex Hicks d/b/a Maxfield Trucking and Request to Deny Mot.
for Entry of Default Against Defs. Blake Maxfield d/b/a Maxway Trucking and Maxway, Inc. (“Mot. to Set Aside
Default”), ECF No. 22, filed October 9, 2025.
3 Id.
4 Notice of Non-Opposition to Defendants’ Motion ECF No. 22 (“Non-Opp.”), ECF No. 28, filed November 6,
2025.
Case 2:25-cv-00726-DBB-DAO Document 29 Filed 11/13/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her complaint on August 27, 2025.5 The Complaint alleges that Defendants
discriminated against Plaintiff and failed to accommodate her reasonable requests when she
informed them that she was pregnant.6 On September 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry
of default against Defendant Rex Hicks.7 The Clerk entered a Default Certificate on October 1,
2025.8 On October 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed her motion for entry of default against Blake
Maxfield.9 One day later, on October 9, 2025, all Defendants filed their answer,10 Defendants
moved to set aside the entry of default against Rex Hicks, and Defendants requested that
Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default against Blake Maxfield be denied.11 On November 6,
2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion and request for denial of
Plaintiff’s motion.12
STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), “[t]he court may set aside an entry of
default for good cause . . . .”13 To establish good cause, the Tenth Circuit requires three criteria
to be satisfied: “(1) the moving party’s culpable conduct did not cause the default; (2) the
5 Compl., ECF No. 1, filed August 27, 2025.
6 Id.
7 Mot. for Entry of Default Against Defendant Rex Hicks dba Maxway Trucking, ECF No. 11, filed September 23,
2025.
8 Default Certificate, ECF No. 18, filed October 1, 2025.
9 Mot. for Default.
10 Answer to Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 21, filed October 9, 2025.
11 Mot. to Set Aside Default.
12 Non-Opp.
13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c).
Case 2:25-cv-00726-DBB-DAO Document 29 Filed 11/13/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the non-moving party will not be prejudiced by
setting aside the judgment.”14
DISCUSSION
I. 	Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default against Defendant Rex Hicks
First, Mr. Hicks’ culpable conduct did not cause the default here. Instead, Mr. Hicks
asserts that the delay resulted from miscommunication between him and counsel regarding his
representation.15 This is a simple mistake, not culpable conduct made in bad faith.16
Second, Defendants asserts a potentially meritorious defense. Defendants assert that
Plaintiff’s requested accommodation would be an undue hardship and is not one they were
required to give.17 Defendants also deny discriminating or retaliating against Plaintiff, as they
offered Plaintiff an alternative position that she declined.18
Third, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the setting aside of any default. Mr. Hicks
moved to set aside the default and filed an answer within 10 days of the entry of default. This
quick action offsets any possible prejudice. Plaintiff’s non-opposition also shows that Plaintiff
will not be prejudiced by setting aside the default.
II. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Against Defendant Blake Maxfield
Plaintiff moved to enter default judgment against Blake Maxfield on October 8, but just
one day later Defendants filed their answer and requested that Plaintiff’s motion be denied. After
14 United States v. $285,350.00 in U.S. Currency, 547 F. App'x 886, 887 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v.
Timbers Preserve, 999 F.2d 452, 454 (10th Cir. 1993)).
15 Mot. to Set Aside Default 3–4.
16 See Speed of Light OPS, LLC v. Elliot, No. 2:22-cv-246, 2024 WL 54432, at *2 (D. Utah Jan. 4, 2024) (“A
moving party’s failure to respond or answer will constitute culpable conduct only when accompanied by
bad faith.”) (citing United States v. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2010)).
17 Id. at 2, 4–5
18 Id. at 4–5.
Case 2:25-cv-00726-DBB-DAO Document 29 Filed 11/13/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
receiving Defendant’s Answer and their request that the motion be denied, Plaintiff filed a notice
of non-opposition. Accordingly, the court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default
judgment against Defendant Blake Maxfield.
ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Against Defendants Blake Maxfield dba Maxway
Trucking and Maxway, Inc.19 is DENIED. Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Entry of Default
Against Defendant Rex Hicks d/b/a Maxfield Trucking20 is GRANTED.
Signed November 13, 2025.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Barlow
United States District Judge
19 ECF No. 20.
20 ECF No. 22.
Case 2:25-cv-00726-DBB-DAO Document 29 Filed 11/13/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4