Anderson v. Entergy Corporation et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MELISSA ANNE ANDERSON 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO: 25-2097
ENTERGY CORPORATION ET AL. 	SECTION “H”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are Plaintiff Melissa Anne Anderson’s Motion for
Default Judgment (Doc. 21) and Defendant Karen Orso Anderson’s Motion to
Set Aside Default (Doc. 22). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is
DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This matter arises from a dispute regarding the proper beneficiary of an
401(k) plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(“ERISA”). Plaintiff Melissa Anne Anderson filed this action on October 7, 2025
and served Defendant Karen Orso Anderson on October 17, 2025. Defendant’s
answer was therefore due on November 7, 2025. When Defendant failed to file
an answer or otherwise appear in this matter, Plaintiff moved for the entry of
default, and the Clerk of Court entered default on November 12, 2025. On
November 	17, 	2025, 	Defendant 	appeared 	and 	filed 	a 	motion 	to 	dismiss.
Plaintiff moved for default judgment on November 18, 2025, and Defendant
moved to set aside the entry of default the following day. Neither party has

2
filed an opposition to the other’s motion. Those Motions are now before this
Court.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) provides that “[t]he court may set
aside an entry of default for good cause.” To determine whether “good cause”
has been shown, a district court should consider (1) whether the default was
willful; (2) whether setting it aside would prejudice the adversary; (3) whether
a 	meritorious 	defense 	is 	presented.1 	These 	factors, 	however, 	are 	not
“talismanic” and the Court may consider others such as whether the public
interest was implicated, whether there was significant financial loss to the
defendant, and whether the defendant acted expeditiously to correct the
default.”2 In deciding a Rule 55(c) motion, this Court is mindful that default
judgments are generally disfavored by the law and that any doubt should be
resolved in favor of the movant.3
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The balance of Rule 55(c) factors weighs heavily in favor of setting aside
default 	in 	this 	matter. 	First, 	the 	default 	does 	not 	appear 	to 	be 	willful.
Defendant’s 	failure 	to 	timely 	answer 	the 	lawsuit 	was 	due 	to 	difficulties
obtaining counsel in New Orleans from her home in Alabama. Second, Plaintiff
will not suffer any prejudice in setting aside default. There is no trial date set
1 Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 277 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2000).
2 Dierschke v. O’Cheskey, 975 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir. 1992).
3 See Lacy, 277 F.3d at 292.

3
in this matter, and no discovery has taken place. Defendant’s responsive
pleading was filed only ten days after her deadline to appear, and other
defendants received extensions on their deadlines to file responsive pleadings.
Finally, the Court notes that Defendant has raised a valid defense in her
Motion to Dismiss.
In sum, the Court finds that the default was not willful, that Defendant
acted quickly to remedy the default, that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by
setting aside the default, and that Defendant can present a meritorious
defense. Given the foregoing, there can be no doubt that Defendant has
established the good cause necessary under Rule 55(c). Accordingly, the entry
of default against Defendant Anderson shall be set aside.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED, Defendant’s
Motion is GRANTED, and the entry of default against Kelly Orso Anderson is
set aside.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 2nd day of March, 2026.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE