Cited by

The party seeking relief from an order has the burden to explain the reasonableness of the delay, and should support that explanation with affidavit or testimony.

see also Rules 55(c), 60(b), Ariz. R. Civ.

A defendant seeking relief from default judgment must show “(1) that it acted promptly in seeking relief from the entry of default; (2) that its failure to file a timely answer was due to either mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; and (3) that it had a meritorious defense.”

“The law favors resolution on the merits, and therefore if the trial court has doubt about whether to vacate a default judgment, it should rule in favor of the moving party.” ().

Ct., (A party who failed to appear could not trigger Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c)’s good-cause requirement to set aside a default judgment because the party could not show “mistake, surprise, inadvertence or excusable neglect.”).

and Richas v. Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, the court found defendants made no showing “that their failure to defend or appear and file a timely Answer was the result of excusable neglect.” See Ariz. R. Civ.

Court, (finding an unexplained delay of five weeks to be unreasonable); see also Hyman v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc., (same for nine-week delay)

Substantial and Meritorious Defense to the Action ¶19 The party challenging a default judgment must “set forth facts which, if proved at the trial, would constitute a meritorious defense.”

" Gonzalez , 243 Ariz. at 534 ¶ 12, 414 P.3d at 1166 (quoting Richas v. Superior Court , , 514, , 1037 (1982) ).

P. 60(b)(1); Hirsch, 136 Ariz. at 309; (noting that the rule requires “‘excusable neglect,’ not ‘unexplained neglect’’’).

Sec., ¶ 16 (App. 2007) (); see also Brenda D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 41 (2018) (citing Christy A.’s discussion to support the proposition that definition of “good cause” in civil defaults relating to finding a waiver of rights is “instructive” in termination context).

(“A meritorious defense must be established by facts and cannot be established through conclusions, assumptions or affidavits based on other than personal knowledge.”).

This burden is “minimal,” United States v. Aguilar, 782 F.3d 1101, 1108 (9th Cir. 2015), requiring only “some legal justification for the exercise of the power, some substantial evidence to support it,” (quoting Lynch v. Ariz. Enter.

“A meritorious defense must be established by facts and cannot be established through conclusions, assumptions or affidavits based on other than personal knowledge.” Christy A., 217 Ariz. at 304–05, ¶ 16 ().

“A meritorious defense must be established by facts and cannot be established through conclusions, assumptions or affidavits based on other than personal knowledge.” Richas v. Superior Court (Motorola, Inc.)