Holding that refusal to grant relief from default was an abuse of discretion "because [default] should be reserved by a trial court as a final, not a first, sanction imposed on a litigant"
Holding that the court abused its discretion when it required corporate defendant whose counsel had withdrawn to find new counsel in less than one week
Holding that the defendant's default was not willful when its counsel “made repeated contacts with [the plaintiff] in an attempt to resolve the suit” and “made plain its intention not to agree to waiver of service and its belief that service therefore had not yet been effected”
Holding that a defendant's failure to file a timely answer to a plaintiff's complaint did not warrant default judgment where the defendant took part in the removal of the action to federal court; filed a notice of appearance before the plaintiff filed the motion for default; and filed a motion to dismiss shortly after the deadline for responsive pleadings, all of which showed that the plaintiff failed to show that he was prejudiced by the failure to respond
Holding that medical expenses incurred due to a wrongful denial of disability benefits, i. e., "make whole" damages, were not equitable in nature under Mertens
Holding that parallel litigation on straightforward contract dispute with primary importance only to the immediate parties did not provide any weight for the piecemeal litigation factor