FRANK
v.
FINE
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 district court entered default judgment against defendant Randall Adam Fine for his willful failure to comply with court orders requiring disclosure statements and case management filings, and struck his pending motion to dismiss as a sanction.
The court entered default judgment against defendant and struck his motion to dismiss as sanctions for his willful failure to comply with court orders regarding disclosure statements and case management filings.
[1] A party's failure to file a required disclosure statement within fourteen days of appearance may result in the denial or striking of their motions.
[2] Willful refusal to comply with court orders regarding disclosure statements can warrant the sanction of entry of default.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A sanction of entry of [C]lerk's default is warranted in this case because of [the d]efendant's willful refusal to comply with [c]ourt orders.”
Establishes the legal standard that willful noncompliance with court orders justifies default sanctions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe court issued an initial order on October 24, 2023 requiring all parties to file disclosure statements within fourteen days of their first appearan…
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 Entry Of Default cases and more on FLexlaw
On October 24, 2023, the court ordered that within fourteen days of a party's first appearance in this case, the party shall file a disclosure statement, and the court cautioned that a “motion, memorandum, response, or other paper (including emergency motions) may be denied or stricken unless the filing party has previously filed" the disclosure statement. (Dkt. 3 at 1–5 & n.1.) On April 14, 2025, Defendant appeared in this case by filing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. 73.) On May 7, 2025, the court noted that Defendant failed to file the required disclosure statement within fourteen days of his appearance, required Defendant to respond within fourteen days of the order, and cautioned: “Failure to comply with this [o]rder may result in the entry of default or other appropriate sanctions without further notice." (Dkt. 75) The same day, the court ordered the parties to confer and file a case management report within fourteen days. (Dkt. 76.) On May 22, 2025, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a unilateral case management report. (Dkt. 77.)
To date, Defendant has not filed a disclosure statement, responded to the May 7, 2025 order noting his noncompliance with the disclosure statement requirement, or filed a case management report together with Plaintiff. The court cautioned Defendant that it may deny or strike his motion unless he previously filed the disclosure statement and may enter default against him if he failed to comply with the May 7, 2025 order concerning the disclosure statement. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 73) is STRICKEN, and default is ENTERED against him. See United States v. Hemmerle, No. 6:18-cv-283-Orl-22GJK, 2018 WL 3029064, at *2, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101468, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2018) (“A sanction of entry of [C]lerk's default is warranted in this case because of [the d]efendant's willful refusal to comply with [c]ourt orders.”), report and recommendation adopted by 2018 WL 3020203, at *1, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101360, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 18, 2018); Glanzrock v. Patriot Roofing Indus., Inc., No. 8:07-cv-535-T-33MAP, 2008 WL 3833950, at *2, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125313, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2008) ("[T]he sanction of default is warranted in this case due to [the d]efendants' willful disregard of both the [c]ourt's [s]cheduling [o]rder and its [s]how [c]ause [o]rder."). The court advises Defendant that it "may set aside an entry of default for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). Defendant may also refile his motion to dismiss once he demonstrates good cause and complies with the requirements discussed in this order.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on May 29, 2025.
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties