DUMAS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In an admiralty exoneration or limitation of liability action, the court granted default judgment against all non-responding claimants who failed to file claims by the February 26, 2025 deadline. Only Farrell Adkins filed a claim, and the court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to enter default judgment against all other potential claimants.
The court granted the motion for default judgment against all persons and entities that did not file a claim by the February 26, 2025 deadline.
“With the claim deadline passed, Clerk's default was entered against all non-responding claimants (Doc. 30) and Petitioners now move for a default judgment (Doc. 44).”
Establishes that default was entered against all claimants who failed to meet the deadline, and that petitioners sought default judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners Novelle Dumas and Henry Dumas initiated an admiralty case seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability. A claim deadline was set fo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exoneration From Or Limitation Of Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
In this admiralty case for exoneration from or limitation of liability, the deadline for potential claimants to file a claim was February 26, 2025. (Doc. 11.) To date, Farrell Adkins is the only claimant to file a claim or answer. (See Docs. 17, 19, 24.) With the claim deadline passed, Clerk's default was entered against all nonresponding claimants (Doc. 30) and Petitioners now move for a default judgment (Doc. 44). On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 49 (“R&R")) submitting that the Court should grant the motion. The time has passed and there were no objections, so the Court examines the R&R for clear error only. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding none, it is due to be adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The R&R (Doc. 49) is ADOPTED AND CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order in its entirety.
2. The Motion (Doc. 44) is GRANTED.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a final default judgment in favor of Petitioners Novelle Dumas and Henry Dumas and against all persons and entities that did not file a claim in this action by the February 26, 2025 deadline.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on July 23, 2025.
ROY B. DALTON, JR.
United States District Judge