St. Hubert v. OPS Family Care, LLC

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHRISTINE ST. HUBERT 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO: 25-1277
OPS FAMILY CARE, LLC 	SECTION “H”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment
(Doc. 15). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff 	Christine 	St. Hubert alleges 	that she was employed 	as 	a
part-time clinical program director at Defendant OPS Family Care, LLC from
September 3, 2024 to January 27, 2025. She alleges that she entered into an
employment contract with Defendant for a monthly salary of $2,300 for 80
hours of work. Plaintiff alleges that, despite multiple demands, Defendant
failed to pay the invoices for the months of November 2024, December 2024,
and January 2025. Plaintiff resigned from her position on January 27, 2025.
Plaintiff’s final demand for payment prior to filing suit was made on May 30,
2025. Plaintiff brings claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), the Louisiana Wage Payment Act (“LWPA”), and state law breach of
contract.
Case 2:25-cv-01277-JTM-KWR Document 21 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Defendant 	was 	served 	on 	August 	15, 	2025 	and 	failed 	to 	make 	an
appearance in this matter. The clerk entered default on September 9, 2025.
Plaintiff moved for the entry of a default judgment on her claims against
Defendant. On January 12, 2026, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion and
entered a default judgment on Plaintiff’s claims. The Court held that Plaintiff
was entitled to the entry of judgment against Defendant in the total amount of
$23,245.41 on her FLSA claim and LWPA claim, including: $1,667.50 in unpaid
wages under the FLSA; $1,667.50 in liquidated damages under the FLSA;
$5,003.40 in unpaid wages under the LWPA; $6,900 in penalties under the
LWPA; $7,532.05 in attorney’s fees; and $474.96 in costs.
On February 25, 2026, Defendant appeared in this matter and moved
the Court to set aside the default judgment. Plaintiff opposes.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(c) and 60(b), a district court
may set aside an entry of default or default judgment for “good cause.”1 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.2 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
1 Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290, 291–92 (5th Cir. 2000).
2 Id. at 292.
Case 2:25-cv-01277-JTM-KWR Document 21 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 4

3
to correct the default.”3 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.4
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The balance of factors weighs in favor of setting aside default in this
matter. First, the default does not appear to be willful. Defendant represents
that its failure to timely answer the lawsuit was due to difficulties obtaining
counsel. 	Defendant 	shows 	that 	after 	being 	served, 	its 	executive 	director
contacted Plaintiff to request an extension of time to respond, which was
denied. Defendant’s executive director represents that she believed requesting
an extension would preserve Defendant’s ability to respond after counsel was
obtained. Upon becoming aware of the default judgment, Defendant promptly
obtained counsel and moved to set aside the default.
Second, the Court finds that Plaintiff will not suffer prejudice in setting
aside default. There is no trial date set in this matter, and no discovery has
taken place. “[M]ere delay does not alone constitute prejudice. Rather, the
plaintiff must show that the delay will result in the loss of evidence, increased
3 Dierschke v. O’Cheskey, 975 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir. 1992).
4 See Lacy, 277 F.3d at 292.
Case 2:25-cv-01277-JTM-KWR Document 21 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 4

4
difficulties in discovery, or greater opportunities for fraud and collusion.”5
Plaintiff has not made that showing.6
Finally, 	Defendant 	presents 	several 	defenses 	to 	Plaintiff’s 	claims,
including that she is an independent contractor, that there is a genuine dispute
over compensation, and that it acted in good faith.
In sum, the Court finds that the default was not willful, that Plaintiff
will not be prejudiced by setting aside the default, and that Defendant can
present a meritorious defense. Given the foregoing, Defendant has established
the good cause necessary to set aside the default judgment.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED, the entry
of default is set aside, and the Default Judgment is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file responsive
pleadings within 14 days of this Order.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 30th day of April, 2026.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5 Id. at 293.
6 Plaintiff largely complains about costs she incurred in attempting to serve
Defendant, but these costs are irrelevant to the question of whether setting aside default will
cause prejudice.
Case 2:25-cv-01277-JTM-KWR Document 21 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 4