[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13303 ____________________

LEE ANNE SAVOIA-MCHUGH, JOHN SAVOIA-MCHUGH, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus MICHAEL S. GLASS,

Defendant-Appellant,

PHILIP KRISPIN, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-13303 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 2 of 18

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13303

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cv-02018-MCR-HTC ____________________

Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. BRANCH, Circuit Judge: Lee Anne and John Savoia-McHugh sued Michael Glass in July of 2019. Over the next 15 months, Glass did not respond to the complaint, the amended complaint, written discovery requests, a motion to compel, or a subpoena. The McHughs requested entry of a clerk’s default, which was entered. After a magistrate judge issued an order cautioning Glass that failure to comply with discovery requests could result in a finding of contempt or sanctions, Glass engaged counsel. Glass then moved to set aside the default, arguing that his delayed appearance was not willful, that he established meritorious defenses, and that setting aside the default would not prejudice the McHughs. The district court denied Glass’s motion and later entered a default judgment against Glass. Glass appealed. After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Glass’s motion because Glass willfully defaulted. We affirm. I. Background The McHughs sued Glass, among others, on July 10, 2019, alleging misconduct arising from certain real estate investment USCA11 Case: 22-13303 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 3 of 18

22-13303 Opinion of the Court 3

transactions.1 A legal assistant to the McHughs’ counsel, Debra Fogarty, signed a declaration saying that she forwarded the summons and complaint to the process server, Terry Bumgardner, on July 11, 2019. Bumgardner signed a declaration saying he “received the Summons and Complaint to be served upon . . . Glass[]” on July 16, 2019, and “personally served Glass at his residence” with the summons and complaint on July 18, 2019. 2

1 We note that one of the McHughs’ claims was for civil theft under Florida

law. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 772.11(1), “[b]efore filing an action for damages [for civil theft], the person claiming injury must make a written demand for $200 or the treble damage amount of the person liable for damages[.]” Thus, a year earlier, on July 3, 2018, counsel for the McHughs sent Glass a formal demand letter via e-mail, Federal Express, and certified mail. The letter demanded “treble damages in the amount of $3,329,520.00” pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 772.11 within 30 days “based upon the funds misappropriated by [Glass] from [the McHughs.]” The letter also requested that Glass advise the McHughs “promptly” if