P sought long-term disability benefits from a company plan. D insured the long-term disability portion of that plan. P was denied long-term disability benefits and filed a complaint under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. ('ERISA'), against the Plan and D. P served the Plan with process by sending a copy of the summons and complaint by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Plan's administrator in New Orleans, Louisiana. P then requested that D's agent for process in Mississippi, Elizabeth Coleman, execute a waiver of service of process. She complied with this request, and the waiver of service of process was filed with the district court. Neither of the defendants timely answered the complaint. P requested the district court clerk to file an entry of default. After a hearing, the district court then entered a default judgment against both Ds. A month later, Ds became aware of the default judgment and promptly moved for relief. The district court denied their motions to set aside the default judgment in its entirety. It decided, however, that P could not recover expenses for medical treatment, and ordered the default judgment adjusted accordingly. Ds appealed; P cross-appealed. D argues that it appeared in the action by waiving service of process, and therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) it was entitled to three days notice prior to the entry of a default judgment. D never received notice. D also argues that its failure to respond timely to Ps' complaint constituted excusable neglect and that other equitable considerations weigh in favor of setting aside the default judgment. The Plan argues improper service of process, and therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the default judgment, venue was improper under ERISA, and its failure to respond was excusable neglect. P appeals the aside of the default judgment compensating him for medical expenses.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.