Summary
This district court order denies pro se defendant Domantas Radeckas's motion to set aside a default judgment entered against him for failing to answer an amended complaint in Amazon's trademark infringement lawsuit. The court found that Radeckas's failure to respond constituted culpable conduct and that he failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense or extraordinary circumstances justifying relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should set aside the default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) based on alleged mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect
- Whether the court should set aside the default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) based on extraordinary circumstances
Holdings
- The court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) because the defendant was culpable and failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense.
- The court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because the defendant's arrest was not an extraordinary circumstance that prevented him from prosecuting the case.
Key quotations
“Rule 60(b)(1) provides that a final judgment may be set aside for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.””
“The court, however, agrees with Amazon that Mr. Radeckas’s conduct was culpable.”
Factual background
Amazon sued multiple defendants for alleged large‑scale refund fraud. A default judgment of $2,000,000 and a permanent injunction were entered against Defendant Domantas Radeckas on February 25, 2025. Radeckas was arrested in Lithuania in December 2024, claimed lack of access to counsel, and later filed a motion to set aside the default judgment.
Procedural history
The court entered a default judgment against Defendant on February 25, 2025. Defendant filed a motion on June 4, 2025 to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) and (b)(6). The court considered the motion and denied it.