Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that good cause was shown when lack of timely answer was the result of inadvertence and was not the result of willful ignorance of the pending litigation
• holding that a similar inadvertent error by a company constituted good cause
• noting that the Rule 55(c) standard is more lenient due to the “policy of favoring merits over default judgment.”
• recognizing “the lenient standards that [the Seventh Circuit] ha[s] established for the application of Rule 55(c)”
• explaining that Rule 55(c)’s good cause standard is to be “liberally applied” because the federal rules favor “trial on the merits over default judgment”
• noting that the Rule 55(c) and Rule 60(b) inquiries turn on the same standard, though it is “more liberally applied in the Rule 55(c) context”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).