Sup. Ct. R. D.C. 55
COMMENT TO 2022 AMENDMENTS
This rule has been amended to highlight new requirements included in emergency, temporary, and permanent legislation amending D.C. Code § 28-3814.
COMMENT TO 2017 AMENDMENTS
This rule continues to differ substantially from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. However, this rule has been amended consistent with the 2007 stylistic changes to the federal rule, and it incorporates other 2007, 2009, and 2015 federal amendments. Specifically, in accordance with the 2007 federal amendments, former section (d) was eliminated. It included two provisions-one stating that Rule 55 applied to the described claimants, which was an incomplete list, and one reminding parties that Rule 54(c) limited the relief available for a default judgment. Also, time periods were revised in accordance with the 2009 federal amendments. Finally, consistent with 2015 amendments to the federal rule, the word "final" was added to the provision in subsection (c)(2) that indicated the court "may set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b)." This amendment helped to clarify the difference between a final default judgment that could be reviewed under Rule 60(b) and a default judgment that does not dispose of all of the claims. The latter is not final until the court directs entry under Rule 54.
COMMENT
Paragraph (b)(1) has been revised to conform to the prior practice in the Court of General Sessions of requiring a verified complaint or affidavit stating the amount due before entry of default by the Clerk. Paragraph (b)(1) has been modified to add the requirement that plaintiff provide a proposed order with the request for judgment within 60 days after default is entered. A Form CA 114 in compliance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (2003) (50 U.S.C. App. § 501 et seq.) must be filed in all cases, whether the default judgment is to be entered by the clerk or the Court, where defendant has failed to appear. A request for judgment under paragraph (b)(2) must now be made by way of a motion. Moreover, paragraph (c) has also been revised to conform to the prior practice in the Court of General Sessions of requiring a verified and sufficient answer before setting aside a default except in those cases in which the parties have entered into a settlement agreement or consent judgment or where either the movant asserts a lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction or when the default was entered after the movant has filed an answer. In addition, paragraph (e) has been revised to reflect reference to the District of Columbia as well as the United States and paragraph (b)(2) has been revised to refer to any "applicable statute" in place of "statute of the United States".