Lutomski v. Panther Valley Coin Exchange, 80-1364
| Decision Date | 07 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1364,80-1364 |
| Citation | 653 F.2d 270 |
| Parties | Karl LUTOMSKI and Mary Lutomski, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PANTHER VALLEY COIN EXCHANGE and Joseph Snisky, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Kathleen Gallagher Lewis, Detroit, Mich., Williams, Schaefer, Ruby & Williams, P.C., Edward L. Ruby, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., for defendants-appellants.
Edward L. Ruby, David Patton, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before WEICK and MERRITT, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
The issue in this diversity case is whether the district court erred in denying a motion to set aside a default judgment entered against defendants-appellants, Panther Valley Coin Exchange and Joseph Sinsky. We hold that because the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2) were not observed, the judgment must be set aside in part and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs, Karl and Mary Lutomski, filed suit against defendants for fraud and breach of contract for defendants' failure to send plaintiffs fifty gold coins purchased by mail. Defendants sent them just twenty coins, and those twenty proved to be counterfeit. The dates pertinent to entry of the default judgment are these:
April 12, 1979 defendant served May 11, 1979 defendants contacted plaintiffs, who granted them extension until May 16
May 16, 1979 defendants again contacted plaintiffs, asking for further extension; plaintiffs granted them no more than one day
May 18, 1979 default entered by clerk; defendants advised by telephone
May 25, 1979 notice of application for judgment filed
June 4, 1979 hearing on default judgment
June 6, 1979 default judgment entered for $57,071.80
Precisely what transpired in the conversations on May 11, 16, and 18 is disputed, but the fact of their occurrence is not. Though defendants were notified of the entry of default, they were not notified about the June 4 hearing, which consisted primarily of testimony by Mary Lutomski on the issue of damages. There apparently was no further contact between plaintiffs and defendants between May 18 and mid-November, when plaintiffs attempted to levy on assets located in Pennsylvania. Defendants requested a stay of execution, and in January 1980, six months after entry of judgment, they filed a motion to set aside. It was denied April 1, 1980 after a hearing on the motion. The district court made no factual determination on what transpired in the May telephone contacts.
In their appeal of the denial of their motion to set aside the judgment, defendants argue that they "appeared" in the case for purposes of Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2) and thus were entitled to written notice three days prior to entry of judgment. The rule provides, "If the party against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, he ... shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least 3 days prior to the hearing on such application." Though a failure to provide notice does not in itself render a judgment void, it is a "serious procedural irregularity." 6 Moore's Federal Practice P 55.05(3). The district court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Victoria's Secret Stores v. Artco Equipment Co., No. C-2-01-198.
...defendants claim informal contacts between plaintiffs and defendants "may constitute an appearance" in this case. Lutomski v. Panther, 653 F.2d 270, 271 (6th Cir.1981). The Court finds defendants' actions show a reckless disregard for the effect of its conduct on these proceedings. Defendan......
-
Roso v. Henning, 19934
...700 (1st Cir.1984)("strong authority" requires court to look beyond formal actions to evaluate appearance); Lutomski v. Panther Valley Coin Exchange, 653 F.2d 270, 271 (6th Cir.1981); Charlton L. Davis & Co. P.C. v. Fedder Data Center, 556 F.2d 308, 309 (5th Cir.1977); H.F. Livermore Corp. ......
-
FARM FAMILY MUT. INS. v. THORN LUMBER
...term allows for the resolution of litigation on its merits, not technical pleading rules. See, e.g., Lutomski v. Panther Valley Coin Exchange, 653 F.2d 270, 271 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (conversations between defendant's and plaintiff's counsel concerning suit sufficient to constitute ap......
-
Trust v. River Crossings Llc.
...presence or absence of ... formal actions to examine other evidence of active representation.” See, e.g., Lutomski v. Panther Valley Coin Exch., 653 F.2d 270, 271 (6th Cir.1981). By conducting a more searching inquiry as to whether parties have appeared in a case, these jurisdictions promot......