USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-1829
RANDOLPH E. GREEN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
CITY OF BOSTON, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Randolph E. Green on brief pro se. _________________
Merita A. Hopkins, Corporation Counsel, and Gerald Fabiano, ___________________ _______________
Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Boston Law Department, on brief
for appellees.
____________________
December 19, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Plaintiffs appeal from a district court __________
judgment dismissing their civil rights complaint for failure
to state a claim. Their principal contention on appeal is
that the district court erred in setting aside a notice of
default, which had been entered when defendants failed to
file a timely response to the amended complaint. The setting
aside of an entry of default is subject to a "good cause"
standard, Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), is reviewable on appeal only
for abuse of discretion, and is not to be disturbed "unless
the district court's decision is clearly wrong," McKinnon v. ________
Kwong Wah Restaurant, 83 F.3d 498, 502 (1st Cir. 1996). The ____________________
court's action here cannot possibly be so characterized.
The "good cause" standard is a "mutable" one, Coon v. ____
Grenier, 867 F.2d 73, 76 (1st Cir. 1989), involving a case- _______
specific determination not amenable to any "mechanical
formula," General Contracting & Trading Co. v. Interpole, ___________________________________ __________
Inc., 899 F.2d 109, 112 (1st Cir. 1990). We have nonetheless ____
identified some general guidelines to assist in its
application. See, e.g., McKinnon, 83 F.3d at 503; Interpole, ___ ____ ________ _________
899 F.2d at 112; Coon, 867 F.2d at 76. These criteria ____
overwhelmingly predominate in defendants' favor. For
example, there has been no suggestion but that simple
inadvertence was involved here. Plaintiffs have not been
prejudiced in any relevant sense. See, e.g., FDIC v. ___ ____ ____
Francisco Inv. Corp., 873 F.2d 474, 479 (1st Cir. 1989). The ____________________
-2-
defenses mounted by defendants have proven to be not only
potentially but actually meritorious. And defendants acted
promptly upon learning of their oversight. Given these
circumstances, the district court acted well within its
discretion in setting aside the entry of default.
Plaintiffs' remaining contention is that the court
discriminated against them in failing to address two of their
offerings: their motion to "vacate" defendants' motion to
dismiss, and their motion for "order of judgment." To the
contrary, the court necessarily if implicitly denied those
requests in the course of granting the motion to dismiss.
As plaintiffs have advanced no specific challenge to the
holding that their amended complaint failed to state a claim,
it suffices to note that we find the district court's
reasoning in this regard unexceptionable.
Affirmed. _________
-3-