Case: 4:22-cv-00537-JAR Doc. #: 41 Filed: 03/25/24 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 227
`
`
`SSV, LLC,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`JACOB FLETCHER, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 4:22-CV-00537-JAR
`
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`This matter is before the Court on Defendant Jacob Fletcher’s Motion to Set Aside
`
`Default Judgment and Set an Evidentiary Hearing. ECF No. 38. Because it is untimely and
`
`meritless, the motion will be denied.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On May 16, 2022, Plaintiff SSV, LLC, brought this action against Jacob Fletcher and his
`
`companies Shaman Supplies LLC and Awe Lounge, LLC for unfair competition and false
`
`designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), common law trademark infringement, trade
`
`dress infringement, dilution under Missouri law, Missouri common law unfair competition, and
`
`cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). ECF No. 1. Defendants were properly served but did
`
`not file answers to SSV’s complaint. On October 27, 2022, the Court entered a Default
`
`Judgment and Permanent Injunction against them. ECF No. 28. After Plaintiff moved for
`
`attorneys’ fees (ECF No. 33) and notified the Court that it changed its name to MIT45, Inc. (ECF
`
`No. 32), the Court entered an Amended Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction reflecting
`
`the corporate name change and ordering Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s costs and attorneys’ fees.
`
`ECF No. 36.
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00537-JAR Doc. #: 41 Filed: 03/25/24 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 228
`
`Exactly one year after the Court entered the Amended Default Judgment and Permanent
`
`Injunction, Defendant Jacob Fletcher filed the present Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and
`
`Set an Evidentiary Hearing. ECF No. 38. In the one-page motion, Fletcher claims that the
`
`parties came to a verbal agreement regarding the material terms of the lawsuit and that he was
`
`not aware that he was required to file an answer. He therefore seeks to set aside the default
`
`judgment and requests an evidentiary hearing to present evidence of that agreement and to cross-
`
`examine Plaintiff. Id.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from a final
`
`judgment, order, or proceeding for:
`
`(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
`evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move
`for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated
`intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
`(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
`discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or
`otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have
`prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation
`of the judgment.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion must be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1),
`
`(2) and (3), not more than one year after the judgment was entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
`
`That one-year limitation period may restart if a subsequent ruling “substantially alters the district
`
`court’s judgment in a manner that disturbs or revises the previous, plainly settled legal rights and
`
`obligations of the parties.” Tool Box, Inc. v. Ogden City Corp., 419 F.3d 1084, 1089 (10th Cir.
`
`2005) (quoted approvingly by Jones v. Swanson, 512 F.3d 1045, 1048 (8th Cir. 2008)).
`
`Here, Fletcher appears to argue that the judgment should be set aside for reason (1): he
`
`mistakenly believed that he was not required to file an answer. Because he did not file his
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00537-JAR Doc. #: 41 Filed: 03/25/24 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 229
`
`motion within one year of the Court’s entry of default judgment, and the amended default
`
`judgment did not substantially alter that judgment, Fletcher’s motion is untimely and will be
`
`denied.
`
`Even if Fletcher’s motion did not run afoul of the one-year clock, the Court would
`
`nevertheless conclude that the motion was not made within a reasonable time. Plaintiff served
`
`Fletcher with its motion for default judgment on October 13, 2022, and the Court granted the
`
`motion on October 27, 2022, so Fletcher would have known of his mistake at least 15 months
`
`before he filed the present motion. For the same reason, Fletcher’s claim that he thought the
`
`parties had an agreement relieving him of his responsibility to file an answer is wholly
`
`incredible. As Plaintiff rightly notes, its service of a motion for default judgment for failure to
`
`file an answer should have notified Fletcher that his belief was not shared by Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`Fletcher identifies no other basis for setting aside the Court’s judgment. Accordingly,
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Jacob Fletcher’s Motion to Set Aside
`
`Default Judgment and Set An Evidentiary Hearing [ECF No. 38] is DENIED.
`
`Dated this 25th day of March 2024.
`
`
`
`________________________________
`JOHN A. ROSS
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`