A common mistake many lawyers make is to assume that deadlines can be missed without consequence. Judges want to hear cases on the merits, the thinking goes, so as long as you file a motion after the missed deadline and just explain why your pleading is late, the judge will almost certainly grant your motion “in the interests of justice” and allow the late filing. This way of thinking isn’t entirely faulty but misses an important caveat: the explanation needs to be a good one. Deadlines exist for a reason. Sure, courts prefer to adjudicate cases on the merits, but such adjudication is only possible for parties who show respect for the rules. Lawsuits are serious business; if you get served with one, you have an obligation to respond promptly. The rules will allow you to avoid a default judgment for good cause, but “good cause” requires more than just having a meritorious defense and lack of prejudice by the other side. Good cause means good cause.
Under Rule 3:8(a), defendants must file responsive pleadings within 21 days after service of process. Failure to do that results in default under Rule 3:19. Under Rule 3:19(b) provides that “[p]rior to the entry of judgment, for good cause shown the court may grant leave to a defendant who is in default to file a late responsive pleading.” (Emphasis added). The Virginia Supreme Court has found good cause to exist in circumstances involving (1) lack of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) good faith of the moving party; (3) promptness of the moving party in responding to the opposing party’s decision to progress with the case; (4) the existence of a meritorious claim or substantial defense; (5) the existence of legitimate extenuating circumstances, and (6) a justified belief that the suit has been abandoned or will be allowed to remain dormant on the docket. (See Westfall v. Westfall, 196 Va. 97, 103 (1954); Eagle Lodge, Inc. v. Hofmeyer, 193 Va. 864, 870 (1952); Worsham v. Nadon, 156 Va. 438, 443 (1931)). Ultimately, trial courts have discretion to rule as they see fit; this list of justifiable circumstances is not exhaustive or necessarily determinative, and the trial judge may decide to refuse leave to file late responsive pleadings even if good cause is shown. (See AME Fin. Corp. v. Kiritsis, 281 Va. 384, 392-393 (2011)).
In an opinion issued last month in the Fairfax County case of Carter Lumber of Virginia, Inc. v. Step 1 Enterprises, LLC, the court was presented with a motion by the defendant to allow it to file a late responsive pleading. Applying the above principles, the court denied the motion and declared the defendant in default. Why? In short, because the defendant just didn’t have a good reason for failing to file a responsive pleading within 21 days of service.
Carter Lumber sued Step 1 Enterprises for approximately $127,000 for allegedly unpaid construction materials and installation work. The complaint was served on Step 1’s registered agent in Virginia, which is a valid method of service on limited liability companies. Responsive pleadings were due on August 14, 2025. A couple of weeks after that deadline came and went without Step 1 filing an answer or other pleading, Carter Lumber moved for a default judgment and sent a copy to Step 1 by regular and certified mail. It wasn’t until October 9th–56 days after service of the complaint–that Step 1 filed anything with the court, when it moved for leave to
The defendant’s main excuse for not responding to the complaint earlier was that “Step 1 [did] not recall” receiving the summons and complaint. Its counsel also argued that the plaintiff’s attorney should have alerted him to the default as a professional courtesy, but didn’t. The court did not find these excuses sufficient to demonstrate good cause within the meaning of Rule 3:19(b).
By arguing that it did not recall receiving the suit papers, all the defendant had really done was admit to inattentiveness and to having sloppy internal systems for handling legal documents. That’s not a sufficient explanation. It failed to explain why multiple notices went unanswered or whether there were any legitimate extenuating circumstances. Step 1 did not act promptly, either. Even after learning of the motion for default judgment, it delayed over a month before taking any action. The “professional courtesy” argument was no good, either, because professional courtesy expectations do not expand procedural obligations.
The court denied the motion for leave to file a late pleading and directed the entry of a default judgment. The opinion makes clear that courts will not excuse defaults without accountability. A meritorious defense and lack of prejudice are not substitutes for diligence. “Good cause” requires a coherent narrative explaining the failure, not just regret after the fact.