JAX IMPLANTS & DENTURES, PLLC
v.
LOOK IMPLANT SUPPLY LLC
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.
The court denied the plaintiff's application for entry of default without prejudice because it was premature, lacked a certificate of service, and failed to include a supporting legal memorandum.
Plaintiff filed an application for entry of default after a prior motion for default judgment was denied as premature. The current motion was substant…
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 Local Rule 3.01(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Application for Entry of Default ("Motion”). Doc. 12. The Motion is due to be denied without prejudice for several reasons.
Plaintiff previously moved for default judgment. Doc. 9. That motion was denied without prejudice as premature because no default had been entered. Doc. 11. The instant Motion is similarly deficient, as it simply repackages the prior premature motion for default judgment with a new title. Doc. 12. Indeed, though now titled as an application for default, the Motion is substantively the same as the prior motion and requests a default judgment, which remains premature. Id.; see also Doc. 11.
In addition, Rules 5(a) and 5(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that written motions be served on every party and that a certificate of service be filed (unless a paper is served by filing it with the court's electronicfiling system). Here, the Motion includes no certificate of service and gives no indication it was ever served on Defendant (who has yet to appear to receive electronic service via CM/ECF). See Doc. 12. For this additional reason, the Motion is due to be denied without prejudice. See PNC Equip. Fin., LLC v. Taos Ventures, LLC, No. 5:13-cv-529-Oc-PRL, 2014 WL 12625121, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2014) (““Nothing in the text of Rule 55 excuses the service requirement for requests for entry of default (as distinguished from motions for default judgment), and Rule 5(a) on its face requires such service.") (citation omitted); see also Ferrara Candy Co. v. Exhale Vapor LLC, No. 2:17-cv-512-FtM- 38MRM, 2017 WL 10591766, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 27, 2017).
Finally, Local Rule 3.01(a) requires that "[a] motion must include a legal memorandum supporting the request." Plaintiff's Motion fails to do so. Doc. 12. This also warrants denial without prejudice of the Motion; any renewed motion must include a memorandum of law and should adequately address, with citations to authority, why service of process on Defendant (a prerequisite to a clerk's default) was proper. See Staley v. Health First, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-621-CEM-LHP, 2024 WL 2815858, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 3, 2024).
Thus, the Motion, Doc. 12, is denied without prejudice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on April 3, 2025.
Samuel J. Horovitz United States Magistrate Judge
Copies to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hearn v. Aaniiih Nakoda Fin., LLC (M.D. Fla. 2025)
- Kinsale Ins. Co. v. Toro Jax Prop. I, LLC, 2014 WL 12625121 (M.D. Fla. 2024)