Jaime Soileau filed suit against the Eastside Boat Shop and its owners, the Coffins, in April 2025. Service was completed by June 5, 2025, but the defendants have never filed an answer to the complaint despite being granted two extensions and explicit warnings from the court.
Judge Wolf initially granted the Coffins' first extension request in June 2025, extending their deadline to July 17 and reminding them that the boat shop "could not defend itself as a corporation and needed an attorney to file an appearance." When the Coffins again missed their deadline and sought another extension, Wolf granted it but warned that "no further extensions will be granted even if the Defendants are unsuccessful in obtaining counsel."
The situation deteriorated further when the defendants failed to appear at a February 26, 2026 discovery hearing. As Wolf recounted, when court staff contacted them by phone, "they stated that they had received notice of the hearing the day prior and were not prepared for the hearing and would not attend." The judge instructed staff to call back and inform them "that their attendance was mandatory," but the Coffins did not answer the phone.
The case began in April 2025 when Soileau filed his complaint against the boat shop and its owners. Default had already been entered against the Eastside Boat Shop itself in a separate order because the corporation also "failed to answer or otherwise defend against the action." The court had repeatedly emphasized that corporations cannot represent themselves in federal court.
Despite the defendants' failure to participate, Wolf acknowledged their claimed struggles with the legal system. "I understand that the Coffins have faced difficulties with the litigation process," the judge wrote. However, she concluded that after "nearly a year" with no answer filed and no appearance at the discovery hearing, the defendants had clearly abandoned their defense.
Wolf applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, which requires default entry when "a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend." The judge found that "given the facts and the procedural status of this case, default is warranted" and directed the clerk to enter default against both individual defendants.
The default order clears the way for Soileau to seek a default judgment on damages. The nature of the underlying dispute between Soileau and the boat shop was not detailed in the order, which focused solely on the defendants' procedural failures to participate in the litigation.