In the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ameritas Life Ins. Corp., No. 4:21-CV-3118, 2021 WL 4401440 (D. Neb. September 27, 2021), the Court confronted a good-faith issue raised by a party and a second good-faith issue raised by the Court itself.
The good-faith issue raised by a party was raised by a defendant's motion for relief from default judgment. One of the factors for a federal judge to consider on such a motion is "whether the movant acted in good faith." Ameritas, 2021 WL 4401440, at *1. Here, the Court found that Ameritas "sufficiently explained the reason for its delay in responding to the complaint in this case, and that the defendant acted in good faith." Ameritas, 2021 WL 4401440, at *2.
Ameritas explained the reason for its delay in responding to the complaint because of changes in procedures in clocking in the mail during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ameritas, 2021 WL 4401440, at *1. The plaintiff did not dispute the defendant's good faith in this case. Ameritas, 2021 WL 4401440, at *2 n.3.
The good-faith issue which arose on the Court's own motion was its consideration of whether it should abstain because of the pendency in parallel litigation between the same parties in New Jersey. The parties themselves admitted that the Nebraska case "is a mirror image" of the case in New Jersey. "The threshold issue in determining whether to abstain due to the pendency of concurrent federal proceedings" is to determine whether one or another proceeding was filed first, in essence. However, if "the first-filing party acted in bad faith," for example, then the filed-first rule as the Court called it, may not apply. Ameritas, 2021 WL 4401440, at *3.
The Court decided, again on its own motion, to stay the case before it and await the New Jersey court's determination of whether it had jurisdiction over the parties there. Ameritas, 2021 WL 4401440, at *3, *4.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2021 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments