OUR ANDROS FISHERIES LTD.
v.
ALL ISLAND MARINE SERVICES, 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 motion for an ex parte default judgment because the plaintiff failed to obtain permission for ex parte filing or provide justification. The court allowed the plaintiff to refile with proper procedure.
Plaintiff filed a motion for ex parte default judgment against defendants who had failed to appear and against whom a clerk's default had been entered…
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 Ex Parte Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EX PARTE DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 15) FILED: July 5, 2023
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff Our Andros Fisheries Ltd. initiated this action on April 26, 2023. Doc. No. 1. Defendants All Island Marine Services, LLC and Frederick Gatchell have failed to appear, and Plaintiff has obtained a Clerk’s default against them. Doc. No. 13. See also Doc. Nos. 6–7, 11. Now, Plaintiff has filed an ex parte motion seeking default judgment against Defendants, which motion has been referred to the undersigned. Doc. No. 15. Upon review, the docket does not reflect that
Plaintiff obtained permission to file the motion ex parte. And Plaintiff provides no explanation in the motion for why it was filed ex parte, nor does Plaintiff provide any legal authority demonstrating that filing the motion ex parte was appropriate. Cf. Visalus, Inc. v. Knox, No. 3:13-cv-107-J-39MCR, 2014 WL 2019299, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2014) (declining to consider motion for default judgment on ex parte basis); Harris Rsch., Inc. v. Lightning Dry Sys., Inc., No. 8:11-cv-422-T-33MAP, 2011 WL 13301693, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2011) (same).
Accordingly, the above-styled motion is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion on or before October 25, 2023. If Plaintiff files the renewed motion ex parte, the renewed motion must contain an explanation as to why the motion is filed ex parte and legal authority establishing that such procedure
is appropriate. Alternatively, Plaintiff shall omit the ex parte designation from the motion, and the Court will require that Plaintiff serve the renewed motion on Defendants.1
ay [...]
LESLIE AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
(M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2017). See also Visalus, Inc., 2014 WL 2019299, at *3 (ordering service of renewed motion for default judgment on the defaulted defendant “in order to reduce the likelihood of a later attack on the judgment pursuant to Rules 55(c) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Our Andros Fisheries Ltd. v. All Island Marine Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 2019299 (M.D. Fla. 2023)…te. And Plaintiff provides no explanation in the motion for why it was filed ex parte, nor does Plaintiff provide any legal authority demonstrating that filing the motion ex parte was appropriate. Cf. Visalus, Inc. v. Knox, No. 3:13-cv-107-J-39MCR, 2014 WL 2019299, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2014) (declining to consider motion for default judgment on ex parte basis); Harris Rsch., Inc. v. Lightning Dry Sys., Inc., No. 8:11-cv-422-T-33MAP, 2011 WL 13301693, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2011) (same). Accordingly,…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Our Andros Fisheries Ltd. v. All Island Marine Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 2019299 (M.D. Fla. 2023)