DeHope v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.

Summary

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia considers motions concerning a late answer, entry of default, default judgment, and motions to dismiss negligence and loss-of-consortium claims arising from a trip over a cord protector in Union Station. The court sets aside NorCham’s default, extends its answer deadline, denies the plaintiffs’ motions to strike and for default judgment, and denies both sponsors’ motions to dismiss. The court concludes that the complaint plausibly alleges duty, notice, agency, and causation under District of Columbia law.

Holdings

1. NorCham showed good cause to set aside the Clerk's entry of default because its delay was not willful, the delay did not prejudice DeHope, and NorCham presented a potentially meritorious defense.
2. NorCham was entitled to a retroactive extension of its answer deadline because its failure to act resulted from excusable neglect.
3. Plaintiffs were not entitled to default judgment, and NorCham's motion to dismiss was properly considered because the court set aside the default and extended the answer deadline.
4. The complaint plausibly alleged that WPAS and NorCham owed DeHope a duty of care and that their failure to address the cord hazard proximately caused her injuries, so both Rule 12(b)(6) motions were denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether NorCham demonstrated good cause to set aside the Clerk's entry of default.
2. Whether NorCham's late filing resulted from excusable neglect warranting an extension of its answer deadline.
3. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to default judgment or to strike NorCham's late motion to dismiss.
4. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that WPAS and NorCham owed DeHope a duty of care and that their conduct proximately caused her injuries.

Disposition

other