govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-2_22-cv-00068-3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
 NORTHERN DIVISION 
 
 
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY ) 
) 
               P laintiff, ) 
) 
      v. ) No. 2:22-CV-68 RLW  
 ) 
PAULINE MAGIN, et al., ) 
 ) 
               Defendants.  ) 
 
 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff BNSF Railway Company’s Motion for Entry 
of Default Judgment Against Defendant Deborah Wynne.  (ECF No. 162).  No response has been 
filed to this motion.  For the following reasons, the Cour t will deny Plaintiff’s motion without 
prejudice. 
Background 
 This matter arises out of an incident that occurred on June 27, 2022, involving a t rain 
collision which purportedly caused injury to numerous passengers on board.  The incident has led 
to litigation by and on behalf of these passengers in Missouri state court.  On September 20, 2022, 
Plaintiff filed this action under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4.  (ECF No. 1).  Plaintiff 
seeks an order from this Court compelling arbitration of Defendants’ claims  in accordance with 
the parties’ arbitration agreement, staying the pending Missouri state court actions, and enjoining 
Defendants from pursuing the state court actions against Plaintiff while the parties arbitrate their 
claims.  (ECF No. 102). 
 On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint to Compel Arbitration, 
adding Deborah Wynne as a defendant to the action.  Plaintiff alleges that  Defendant Wynne has 
filed a lawsuit in state court in which she seeks monetary damages for injuries she purportedly 
Case: 2:22-cv-00068-HEA     Doc. #:  168     Filed: 05/08/24     Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
sustained as a passenger during the collision.  (ECF No. 102).  On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff 
served Defendant Wynne.  (ECF No. 108).  Defendant Wynne failed to plead or otherwise 
defend this action, and on February 5, 2024, the Court issued an o rder directing Plaintiff to file a 
motion for entry of default by the Clerk of the Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).  
(ECF No. 161).  Plaintiff thereafter moved for entry of default by the Clerk of the Court.  Plaintiff 
also filed the instant motion for default judgment.  (ECF Nos. 162, 163).  O n February 23, 2024, 
a Clerk’s Entry of Default under Rule 55(a) was entered against Defendant Wynne.  (ECF No. 
164). 
 On May 1, 2024, upon review of the parties’ briefings on several motions to dismiss, the 
Court entered an order dismissing several defendants from the suit for lack of standing.  As to the 
remaining defendants, the Court found that Plaintiff had alleged sufficient factual matter, accepted 
as true, to state a claim to relief that was plausible on its face.  The Court clarified that it had made 
no determination regarding the validity or applicability of the a rbitration agreement.  (ECF Nos. 
166, 167).     
Discussion 
 Where the Clerk has entered default against a defendant, the party has “no further standing 
to contest the factual allegations of the plaintiff’s claim for relief” and “is deemed to have admitted 
all well pleaded allegations in the complaint.”  Taylor v. City of Ballwin, 859 F.2d 1330, 1333 n.7 
(8th Cir. 1988) (cleaned up).  However, default judgements  are not favored in the law, United 
States ex rel. Time Equip. Rental & Sales, Inc. v. Harre , 983 F.2d 128, 130 (8th Cir. 1993), and 
their entry is discretionary, see Taylor, 859 F.2d at 1332.  “Even when a defendant is technically 
in default, a plaintiff is not entitled to default judgment as a matter of right.”  Edwards v. Dwyer, 
No. 1:06-CV-1 CAS, 2008 WL 222514, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 25, 2008) (internal quotation and 
citation omitted). 
Case: 2:22-cv-00068-HEA     Doc. #:  168     Filed: 05/08/24     Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
 “Where multiple defendants are similarly situated, even if the liability asserted against 
them is not joint, default judgment should not be entered against a defaulting defendant if the other 
defendants prevail on the merits.”  Id. (cleaned up).  “This principle is designed to avoid 
inconsistent verdicts, as it would be incongruous and unfair to allow a plaintiff to prevail against 
defaulting defendants on a legal theory that was rejected with regard to answering defendants in 
the same action.”  Id. (citing Angelo Iafrate Constr., LLC v. Potashnick Constr., Inc., 370 F.3d 
715, 722 (8th Cir. 2004)). 
 In view of the foregoing standards, the Court finds that Defendant Wynne is similarly 
situated to the remaining defendants.  The Court has not yet  decided the validity or applicability 
of the arbitration agreement.  If Plaintiff ’s claims against the remaining defendants ultimately fail 
on the merits, it would be inconsistent for Plaintiff  to prevail against Defendant Wynne.  
Therefore, to avoid the possibility of inconsistent judgments, the Court finds that default judgment 
against Defendant Wynne is not appropriate at this time.  See Ramshaw v. Ehret, 4:20-CV-359-
NAB, 2022 WL 13689212, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 21, 2022) (in multiple defendant lawsuit, default 
judgment should be avoided where entry of default would create inconsistent and unsupportable 
result; to avoid this result, other district courts within Eighth Circuit have declined to enter default 
judgment against defaulting defendant when answering defendant remained; collecting cases). 
 Accordingly, 
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff BNSF Railway Company’s Motion for Entry 
of Default Judgment Against Defendant Deborah Wynne (ECF No. 162) is DENIED without 
prejudice. 
 
                                             
RONNIE L. WHITE 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
Dated this   8th   day of May, 2024.  
Case: 2:22-cv-00068-HEA     Doc. #:  168     Filed: 05/08/24     Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight