Trade Well International v. United Central Bank

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside default judgment on defendant’s counterclaim, where: (1) said judgment was entered after plaintiff’s counsel’s pro hac vice status had been revoked and plaintiff had not obtained substitute counsel during subsequent seven-month period; and (2) plaintiff’s counsel’s status was restored on appeal of Dist. Ct.’s contempt order. Dist. Ct. could properly find that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate good cause to correct default judgment, where plaintiff had contacted, at most, 14 counsel during said period. Moreover, because corporations cannot proceed pro se, Dist. Ct. could properly enter default judgment after plaintiff had failed to secure replacement counsel and after plaintiff had failed to file response to counterclaim in five months. Also, Dist. Ct. could discredit testimony of plaintiff’s representative regarding efforts to obtain substitute counsel even though defendant had failed to present any contrary evidence on said issue, since court may find that witness is incredible based on lack of specific details, implausibility, internal inconsistencies and contrary evidence. Fact that plaintiff’s counsel had been improperly removed did not mandate that motion to set aside resulting default judgment be granted.