Dassault Systemes, SA v. Childress
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24582, 663 F.3d 832, 101 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1032 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A motion to set aside an entry of default made before a final determination of damages is governed by the more lenient 'good cause' standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), not the stricter standards of Rule 60(b) for setting aside final judgments. Courts exercise a 'forgiving' review for abuse of discretion when a district court denies such a motion, favoring judgments on the merits.
Facts:
- For approximately fifteen years, Keith Childress owned and operated Practical CATIA, a small business that trained individuals to use the computer-aided design program CATIA.
- Dassault Systemes, SA developed the CATIA software and owns the copyrights for its products, including CATIA V5, and the registered CATIA trademark.
- In August 2003, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied Childress's request for a trademark on the name “Practical Catia Training” due to potential confusion with Dassault’s existing marks.
- In 2001, Childress obtained an initial annual nodelock license for Dassault’s CATIA V5 software through IBM, a Dassault business partner, under the name “G. Bailey and Associates,” located at Childress’s address.
- Childress paid an approximately $2,380 yearly fee for this single license from 2002 until 2010.
- Childress operated CATIA software on multiple computers during his training classes, asserting that IBM and MSC (an authorized CATIA reseller) provided additional licenses and a “workaround” to access the software on multiple machines in exchange for sales leads and website advertising.
- Dassault countered that Childress possessed no such additional licenses and instead used bootlegged copies of the CATIA software created by illegally cloning his single legitimate license onto multiple additional machines.
- On October 30, 2006, the FBI executed a search warrant for Practical CATIA’s office and training site, confiscating twenty computers alleged to contain bootlegged copies of the CATIA software.
Procedural Posture:
- Dassault filed a civil complaint against Childress in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on February 12, 2009, alleging copyright and trademark infringement, unfair competition, and Michigan Consumer Protection Act violations.
- The district court granted Childress an extension, ordering him to file an answer by March 27, 2009.
- Childress filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) motion for a more definite statement, which the district court denied, subsequently ordering Childress to file an answer within thirty days of its May 22, 2009 order.
- On June 25, 2009, Childress filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) motion to strike information from the complaint, along with a letter explaining this filing in lieu of an answer.
- Dassault filed a motion for default judgment on July 6, 2009, due to Childress's failure to file a responsive pleading.
- On October 27, 2009, the district court ordered Childress to show cause why default judgment should not be entered.
- Childress responded, explaining his good-faith belief that his actions were permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that he filed the motion to strike to address allegedly secret grand jury information in the complaint.
- After determining Childress’s show-cause response insufficient, the district court granted Dassault’s motion for default judgment on December 7, 2009.
- Childress filed a motion on January 27, 2010, requesting that the district court set aside the entry of default judgment.
- On July 20, 2010, the district court denied Childress’s motion to set aside default, and after considering damages, entered a permanent injunction against Childress and a judgment in Dassault’s favor for $964,465 plus attorney fees and costs.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by refusing to set aside the entry of default judgment against a pro se defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) when the defendant demonstrated arguable good cause, a potentially meritorious defense, and the plaintiff failed to establish substantial prejudice?
Opinions:
Majority - Karen Nelson Moore
Yes, the district court abused its discretion by denying Childress’s motion to set aside the entry of default judgment. The court first clarified that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), which permits setting aside a default for 'good cause shown,' applies to motions made before a final judgment on damages has been entered. In contrast, the stricter Rule 60(b) standards apply only to motions seeking relief from a final, appealable default judgment. Since Childress filed his motion to set aside the default on January 27, 2010, well before the district court entered a final judgment on damages on July 20, 2010, the Rule 55(c) standard should have been applied, requiring a 'forgiving' review that construes ambiguous facts in the defendant's favor. Applying the three United Coin Meter factors to Childress’s situation, the court found: (1) Culpability: Childress, as a pro se litigant, likely struggled to navigate complex procedural rules rather than deliberately thwarting judicial proceedings. His filings, show-cause response, and an affidavit from a legal secretary supported his confusion, mitigating his culpability. (2) Prejudice: Dassault’s assertions of prejudice—potential data loss, increased legal fees, and ongoing infringement—were either unsupported, generally insufficient (as increased litigation costs are inherent in setting aside default), or related to past conduct rather than future prejudice from reopening the judgment. (3) Meritorious Defense: Childress presented several defenses, including an arguable statute-of-limitations defense, which satisfied the lenient 'hint of a suggestion' standard, meaning there was 'some possibility' the outcome could change after a full trial. Given that all three factors, especially the preference for judgments on the merits, weighed less heavily against Childress than the district court concluded, the refusal to set aside default was an abuse of discretion. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings regarding Dassault’s subpoena for FBI materials, finding the materials did not reveal the grand jury's nature or scope, and Childress’s motion to strike, concluding that Rule 6(e) does not impose secrecy obligations on private corporations like Dassault.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the procedural standards for setting aside default entries versus default judgments, reinforcing that a more lenient 'good cause' standard applies under Rule 55(c) when damages have not yet been finalized. It underscores the judicial preference for resolving cases on their merits, particularly when pro se litigants are involved, by requiring a 'forgiving' review of a district court's refusal to set aside default. This case will guide future courts in evaluating whether a defendant's conduct constitutes 'willfulness,' how to assess 'prejudice' beyond mere litigation costs, and the minimal threshold for establishing a 'meritorious defense' when considering motions to set aside default, potentially increasing the likelihood that such motions are granted.
