ROSSIN
v.
CLINCH

M.D. Fla. | 2021-08-10
No. 3:21-cv-342
District Court, M.D. Florida (2021)

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.

Holding

The Court held that a default judgment is not appropriate when the defendant has appeared and filed a timely motion to dismiss.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs sought a default judgment against the defendant for failing to file an answer. However, the defendant had appeared and filed a motion to di…

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.

Topics
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 Default Judgment Motion To Dismiss

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law to Support Request to the Clerk for Default Judgment Auth: Fed. R. C. P. 55(b)(1) (Doc. No. 15; “Motion”), filed June 16, 2021. In the Motion, Plaintiffs seek the entry of a default judgment in the sum of $954,109,590.00 for “Defendant[’s] . . . failure to file an answer in 21 days pursuant to” Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule(s)”). Motion at Exhibit1 (Doc. No. 15-1).1 Upon review of the Motion, the file, and the applicable law, the Motion is due to be denied for the reasons set forth herein.

never has been placed at issue.” Solaroll Shade & Shutter Corp. v. Bio-Energy Sys., 803 F. 2d 1130, 1134 (11th Cir. 1986). Here, the entry of a default judgment is not appropriate because Defendant is not in default. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Defendant has appeared in this case and currently has a timely pending motion to dismiss. See Defendant Sgt. L. Clinch’s Opposed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 13), filed June 3, 2021. Therefore, default judgment is not appropriate. Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED: Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law to Support Request to the Clerk for Default Judgment Auth: Fed. R. C. P. 55(b)(1) (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED.? DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on August 10, 2021.

Neate Row Rice

JAMES R. KLINDT

United States Magistrate Judge keh Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties

Footnotes
1 As the Motion and attached Exhibit do not contain numbered pages, citations to them are in accordance with the pagination assigned by the Court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF). Rule 55 provides the requirements for entry of a default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). A default judgment may be entered “against a defendant who never appears or answers a complaint, for in such circumstances the case
2 “[A] magistrate judge ha[s] authority to deny [a] motion for default judgment.” Franklin v. Parnell, 461 F. App’x 823, 825 n.2 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)); see also Baker v. Warner / Chappell Music, Inc., No. 14-ev-22403, 2015 WL 1534522, at *1n.1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2015) (unpublished) (finding same) (citations omitted).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw