Indigo America, Inc. v. Big Impressions, LLC.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defense need only be factually “cognizable” or “arguable”
• noting that a party is not required to prove a potentially meritorious defense at this stage
• noting “long-standing rule barring persons who are not licensed to practice law from representing corporations in judicial proceedings”
• explaining that “[t]here is no mechanical formula for determining 1 Defendant PRASA also filed its answer to the complaint as a separate docket entry. See Docket No. 42. 2 The Court notes that Defendant PRASA’s motion erroneously invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b
• noting “obvious significance” of meritorious defense because, without such, “it makes little sense to set aside the entry of default, as doing so would merely delay the inevitable”
• Moving party’s “prejudice falls particularly flat here because it easily could have prevented the delay” when the moving party waited eight months to file a motion for default.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).