VANESSA VAZQUEZ
v.
JEWELRY ARTISANS OF ORLANDO, INC. AND ALBERTO LOPEZ

M.D. Fla. | 2025-11-05
No. 72.
2011 WL 6752561 District Court, M.D. Florida (2025) Positive Treatment
Cited by 19 cases

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 denied the motion for default judgment without prejudice, requiring the plaintiff to address specific issues before renewal.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sought default judgment against two defendants. One defendant died after a clerk's default was entered, but the motion did not address this …

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
Inconsistent Judgments Suggestion Of Death Joint Liability Default Judgment

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inconsistent Judgments cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Final Default Judgment. Doc. No. 72. On review, the motion (Doc. No. 72) will be DENIED without prejudice.

By the motion, Plaintiff seeks default judgment against both Defendants Jewelry Artisans of Orlando, Inc. and Alberto Lopez. Doc. No. 72. Although both Defendants are subject to Clerk's default, Doc. Nos. 53, 67, after entry of same, Plaintiff notified the Court by Suggestion of Death that Alberto Lopez passed away. See Doc. No. 68. But the present motion does not address the Suggestion of Death, nor does it provide any legal authority demonstrating that Plaintiff may pursue default judgment against a deceased party. See Doc. No. 72. Moreover, assuming default judgment cannot be entered against Alberto Lopez prior to substitution of an estate as Plaintiff suggests in other filings, see Doc. No. 74, it is unclear whether the Court would properly entertain a motion for default judgment against Jewelry Artisans of Orlando, Inc., given the risk of inconsistent judgments. See generally Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Creation's Own Corp., No. 6:11-cv-1054-Orl-28DAB, 2011 WL 6752561, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2011) ("[I]n cases involving more than one defendant, a judgment should not be entered against a defaulting party alleged to be jointly liable, until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all defendants." (citing Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552 (1872)).

Accordingly, the Court will require Plaintiff to address these issues by a renewed motion. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Final Default Judgment (Doc. No. 72) is DENIED without prejudice. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion for default judgment, which must address the issues outlined in this Order and establish, by citation to evidence and legal authority, that default judgment against both Defendants is proper at this time. Alternatively, Plaintiff may, by the same deadline, move for any alternative relief she deems proper given the procedural posture of this case. This Order does not speak to the Order to Show Cause issued by the presiding District Judge. See Doc. No. 69.¹

1 The Order to Show Cause was issued by then-presiding District Judge Wendy W. Berger, although the case has now been reassigned to presiding District Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe. Doc. No. 70.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 5, 2025.

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

Uslistan Price

LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (19 total)

  • Vazquez v. Jewelry Artisans of Orlando, Inc., 2011 WL 6752561 (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …er the Court would properly entertain a motion for default judgment against Jewelry Artisans of Orlando, Inc., given the risk of inconsistent judgments. See generally Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Creation's Own Corp., No. 6:11-cv-1054-Orl-28DAB, 2011 WL 6752561, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2011) ("[I]n cases involving more than one defendant, a judgment should not be entered against a defaulting party alleged to be jointly liable, until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all defendant…
    1 / 2
  • Schatz v. Centr Brands Corp., 2019 WL 1649948 (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …district court is located.” As such, in addition to adequate service of process, the party moving for default judgment must demonstrate that a court has jurisdiction over the parties. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Creation's Own Corp., S.C., 2011 WL 6752561, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 6752557 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2011) (“In addition to a showing of adequate service of process (or a showing sufficient to establish waiver of same), a Court must assure itsel…
  • Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Alfred Marchetti, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …nvolving more than one defendant, a judgment. should not be entered against a defaulting party alleged to be jointly liable, until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all defendants.” Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Creation's Own Corp., 2011 WL 6752561, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2011), report and ---PAGE 2--- Case 6:25-cv-00807-CEM-DCI Document 45 Filed 08/12/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1312 recommendation adopted by 2011 WL 6752557 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2011) (citing Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552 (18…
    1 / 3

Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw