“There comes a time when the court must say that enough is enough.”

A default judgment was entered in Cook v. Superior Assisted Living, LLC, 2025 WL 2306268 (D. Md. Aug. 11, 2025).  “Where missed deadlines become the norm rather than the exception, … there comes a time when the court must say that enough is enough.” Id. at *1.

Plaintiff sued, alleging failure to pay the proper minimum wage and overtime.  Defendants failed to timely respond to plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.  The Court issued a show cause order.

[T]wo weeks after the Court’s deadline—Defendants moved for an extension of time to respond to the show-cause order, stating that defense counsel had been out of the country and “became medically indisposed, thereby rendering him unable to attend to legal matters.” …. Defendants do not, however, provide a reason for their continuous failure to engage in discovery for almost nine months and heed the Court’s discovery orders, which serves as the basis for Ms. Cook’s motion for sanctions, or their failure to timely respond to the pending motion for sanctions. Further, Defendants’ assertions regarding counsel’s alleged unavailability are unsupported by a declaration or other competent evidence.

Id. at *1. The unsupported motion for an extension of time was denied and the Court wrote:

A party may be excused from a single or occasional failure to meet a scheduling deadline, and a court ought to be mindful that even the most diligent lawyer or ardent party may need an extension of time to meet filing obligations. Where missed deadlines become the norm rather than the exception, however, there comes a time when the court must say that enough is enough.

Id. (cleaned up; emphasis added), quoting Wonasue v. University of Maryland Alumni Ass’n, Civil Action No. PWG-11-3657, 2013 WL 5719004, at *3 (D. Md. Oct. 17, 2013).

FACTS

Ms. Cook was employed as a “caregiver” for assisted living.  The “independent contractor” agreement stated that she had full control of her work, but also contained several provisions granting control to Defendants. She was required to fill out timesheets, defendants provided all of her supplies and set her schedule, and there were other indicia of control. Id. at *2.

“On June 4, 2022, Ms. Cook informed Superior that her payment checks were not accurately reflecting all of the hours she had worked…. Defendants did not resolve the lost payment issue and eventually phased her out of the work schedule.” Id.  She sued.

Initially, a default was entered by the Clerk for failure to respond to the Complaint.  It was later vacated and the Court “entered an Order that set forth the parties’ obligation to cooperate in planning and conducting discovery and set forth the Court’s procedure for resolving discovery disputes.”  Id.

Next, on February 4, 2025, “Ms. Cook requested a conference to discuss Defendants’ alleged failure to respond to written discovery requests.”  The Court held the conference three days later and ordered that defendants respond to plaintiff’s discovery by February 21, 2025.  Id. at *3.

On February 27^th, Ms. Cook “again requested a conference due to Defendants’ alleged failure to participate in discovery,” and notified the Court on April 8 of a continued failure to respond.

While Ms. Cook again requested a default judgment, on April 11^th, “the Court directed Defendants to respond to Ms. Cook’s pending discovery requests by April 25, 2025.” Id.

On April 26^th, Ms. Cook notified the Court by letter of a failure to respond.  “On April 28, 2025, the Court entered an Order advising Ms. Cook that if she desired affirmative relief from the Court, she should file a motion requesting such relief.”  Id.

On June 2^nd, Ms. Cook filed a motion and the Court ordered that Defendants show cause why the motion should not be granted.  It warned defendants that sanctions may follow. Defendants did not timely respond  .

Ms. Cook seeks a default judgment against Defendants as a sanction for failure to respond to repeated discovery requests pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 55…. In support of her motion, Ms. Cook asserts that Defendants have failed to respond to her written discovery requests, ignored the Court’s February 7, 2025, and April 11, 2025 Orders, and ignored the Court’s directives during the February 7, 2025 discovery conference.

Id. at *3.

STANDARD FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

The Court held that it must engage in a four-part analysis to determine whether dismissal was warranted “examining: (1) whether the noncomplying party acted in bad faith; (2) the amount of prejudice the noncompliance caused the adversary, which necessarily includes an inquiry into the materiality of the evidence he failed to produce; (3) the need for deterrence of the particular sort of noncompliance; and (4) the effectiveness of less drastic sanctions…. In addition to the four-part analysis, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals requires that the District Court provide an ‘explicit and clear’ warning to the noncomplying party before dismissing a case with prejudice or entering a default judgment.”  Id. at *3 (cleaned up).

HOLDINGS

On this record, the Court found that “consistently” ignoring Federal and Local Rules, as well as Court orders, was a “pattern of recalcitrance and disregard” that constituted bad faith. Id. at *4.

The Court stated that Defendants’ “refusal to participate in discovery has materially prejudiced Ms. Cook, who is significantly limited in her ability to prosecute this action.”  Id. The core factual issue was whether Ms. Cook qualified as an “employee” under the FLSA and she was “significantly hamper[ed]” by the Defendants’ acts and omissions.

There was also a need for deterrence: “Through their inaction, [defendants] Superior and Ms. Davis have demonstrated that they are unwilling to cooperate in discovery…. Defendants’ disregard for the Court’s Orders indicates a strong need for deterrence.” Id. at *4.

The Court found that no other sanction would be effective. Id. at *5.

“In cases where a plaintiff has been completely unresponsive in discovery, this court has found that any sanctions less drastic than dismissal of the case would be ineffective….In fact, in situations such as this one, where one party has brought the case to a hal[t] through a failure to participate in discovery, the other relevant sanctions available under Rule 37 are a poor fit because their effectiveness depends on the lawsuit moving forward.”

Id. (citation omitted).

The Court added: “Finally, default judgment is appropriate because the Court repeatedly warned Superior and Ms. Davis of the consequences of their failure to participate in discovery and respond to this Court’s Orders. Defendants were explicitly forewarned that their failure to participate in discovery could result in sanctions, including entry of a default judgment against them, in the Court’s February 7, 2025; April 11, 2025; and July 18, 2025 Orders.” Id. at *5.

CONCLUSION

The Court reviewed the allegations of Ms. Cook’s Complaint because one of the legal effects of a default is to admit the well-pleaded allegations. Id.at *5.  It found that they alleged a legitimate cause of action.  It granted the motion for sanctions on the merits, and held that it had insufficient information to evaluate the claim for damages.