Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Carrasco v. THOMAS D. WALSH, INC., 988 A.2d 471 (2010)

Citation
Carrasco v. THOMAS D. WALSH, INC., 988 A.2d 471 (2010)
Parent Document
Carrasco v. THOMAS D. WALSH, INC., 988 A.2d 471 (2010)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2010-01-28

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text

836 chars
Furthermore, in deciding whether Carrasco should be penalized for not mov-ing more expeditiously to set aside the default judgment, it makes sense to consider the fifth factor pertinent to a Rule 60(b) motion — whether and to what extent the non-movant would be prejudiced by granting the movant’s request for relief. That question has yet to be explored in this case. Prejudice to the landlord might be fairly apparent if Carrasco were seeking to resume his tenancy, but he is not. No prejudice to Walsh was identified in the record below, perhaps because the trial court ruled without hearing from the landlord’s counsel. The fact that vacatur of the default judgment would remove a res judicata bar to a wrongful eviction action against Walsh does not demonstrate the sort of delay-caused prejudice that would justify denying relief.