Sixth District Vacates $730,466.10 Default Judgment and Reinstates Defendant’s Answer.
The next case is a good example of the POOF! principle. Plaintiff obtained a $730,466.10 default judgment against defendant, set up by the trial court’s grant of terminating sanctions for failure to respond to discovery requests. The only problem is that the record did not show willfulness in failing to comply with discovery requests. You know what the result was—POOF!
In Styles v. Mumbert, Case No. H029767 (6th Dist. Feb. 26, 2009) (unpublished), defendant appealed the substantial default judgment. The facts showed that (1) defendant’s attorney took the blame for the failure to not provide discovery responses earlier, and (2) the attorney indicated that responses had been sent the night prior to the terminating sanctions motion. The lower court accepted the defense attorney’s apologies, but went on to strike defendant’s answer even though there was no clearly developed record showing willfulness.
That deficiency was fatal on appeal. The Sixth District found no finding of willfulness and, in fact, observed that the circumstances demonstrated defendant did provide discovery responses, even if they were very tardy in nature. Because there was no outright refusal to comply with discovery obligations, the substantial default judgment was too draconian and was reversed (POOF!).