GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO.
v.
TRAVIS UTTER
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 granted the motion for clerk's default against the individual defendant but denied the motions against the corporate defendants due to insufficient detail regarding service of process.
Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants for breach of contract and sought clerk's default after defendants failed to appear or respond. Service was perfec…
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 Florida Statute § 48.081(3)(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Before the clerk may enter default, he or she must determine that effective service has been made on the defaulting defendant because, without effective service, there is no jurisdiction and no obligation to answer or “otherwise defend.” See Kelly v. Florida, 233 F. App’x 883, 885 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants have not responded to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1) or otherwise appeared, and the time to do so has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) (providing that a defendant must file a responsive pleading to a complaint within 21 days after being served a copy of the summons and the complaint). The Court must now determine whether Plaintiffs perfected service on Defendants.
A. Defendant Ronald Jack Travis Utter, D.C.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides that service on an individual may be perfected by “delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(A). Here, Defendant Utter was personally served with a copy of the summons and Complaint (Doc. 41-1), and thus the Court finds that service of process was perfected on Defendant Utter, pursuant to Rule 4(e). Therefore, the Motion for Clerk’s Default against him (Doc. 42) is due to be granted.
B. The Corporate Defendants
As to a corporate defendant, the Federal Rules provide that service can be made by: delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and—if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires—by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant[.] Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B). A corporate defendant may also be served by “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made[.]” Fed. R. Civ. 4(e)(1), 4(h)(1)(A). Florida Statutes permit process to be served on a corporation by serving any one of the following persons: (a) the president, vice president or other corporate head; (b) the cashier, treasurer, secretary, or general manager; (c) any corporate director; (d) any officer or business agent residing in Florida; (e) or an agent designated by the corporation under Florida Statute § 48.091.1 See Fla. Stat. § 48.081. Here, Plaintiffs served each of the corporate Defendants by leaving the summons and Complaint with Debora Dicents, who, according to the affidavits of service, was “authorized to accept” service on behalf of each of the entities. (Docs. 16–
22, 24–27.) The affidavits of service further assert service was perfected in accordance with “48.081 (1)(a)(b)(c)(d), (2) or (3)” without additional detail. (Id.) The Motions,
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Motion for Clerk’s Default against Defendant Ronald Jack Travis Utter, D.C. (Doc. 42) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter default as to Defendant Ronald Jack Travis Utter, D.C. 2. The Motions for Clerk’s Default against the remaining Defendants (Docs. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs may file renewed motions that address the deficiencies identified in this Order, or, alternatively, may re-serve the corporate Defendants within 30 days of the date of this Order. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 15, 2023.
[...] KIDD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
? The Motions at Docket Entries 31 and 32 appear to be duplicative.