Bluegrass Marine Inc. v. Galena Road Gravel, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
211 F.R.D. 356 (2002)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Bluegrass Marine, Inc. (Bluegrass) (plaintiff) owned a towboat that was damaged by a barge that had been moored unsafely within a fleet. Bluegrass filed a complaint in federal district court against Galena Road Gravel, Inc. (defendant), as the possible owner of the barge, and Hamm’s Harbor Service & Fleeting, Inc. (Hamm’s), as the alleged operator of the fleet. The president of Hamm’s, Richard Hamm, sent a letter to Bluegrass swearing that Hamm’s did not own or operate that fleet and had no control over the barge. Believing this lack of control meant it had no possible liability, Hamm’s did not file an answer or otherwise formally respond to the complaint. Bluegrass amended the complaint to add two more possible barge owners as defendants. When Hamm’s did not respond to the amended complaint either, Bluegrass obtained an entry of default from the court clerk against Hamm’s. Eight business days later, an attorney for Hamm’s filed a motion to vacate the entry of default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. Hamm testified that he had sincerely believed the letter clarifying the company’s lack of involvement was sufficient. Hamm’s still did not file an answer. The court considered the motion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gilbert, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 912,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,200 briefs, keyed to 997 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

