LEISTER
v.
LEGAL ACTION BUREAU, INC.
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 a clerk's default because the plaintiff failed to adequately demonstrate that service of process on the defendant was proper under the applicable rules.
The plaintiff sought a clerk's default against the defendant for failing to appear after being served. Service was allegedly made on an office manager…
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 Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 4(H)(1)(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
Case No: 6:24-cv-511-WWB-LHP
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:
MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CLERK'S DEFAULT AGAINST LEGAL ACTION BUREAU, INC. (Doc. No. 17)
FILED: July 25, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff seeks Clerk's default against Defendant Legal Action Bureau, Inc., stating that Defendant was served on June 27, 2024, but has failed to appear or otherwise defend. Doc. Nos. 16–17; Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Upon review, however,
the motion fails to adequately address, with citation to legal authority, that service of process on Defendant was proper. See generally United States v. Donald, No. 3:09- cv-147-J-32HTS, 2009 WL 1810357, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2009) (before a Clerk's default can be entered against a defendant, the Court must determine that the defendant was properly served).
Specifically, Plaintiff states that service was made at Defendant's principal address by serving an office manager named “Judy” who refused to provide her last name. Doc. No. 16, at 2; Doc. No. 17. Plaintiff relies solely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(B) for the propriety of service, but Plaintiff provides no legal authority demonstrating that service on an office manager would suffice under that Rule. Cf. Matero v. Digital Ink Americas LLC, No. 6:22-cv-1606-CEM-LHP, 2023 WL 2527046, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2023) (denying without prejudice Clerk's default under Rule 4(h)(1)(B), where service was made on an office manager of LLC); Hess Corp. v. Fla.-Georgia Trucking, Inc., No. 3:08-cv-883-J-34TEM, 2009 WL 248236, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2009) (“[A] position as office manager does not fit in any of the categories prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B).").
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion within fourteen (14) days of this Order, which must include citation to legal authority establishing that service of process on Defendant was proper under applicable law.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 25, 2024.
Leslie Hoffman Price
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leister v. Legal Action Bureau, Inc., 2009 WL 248236 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…1606-CEM-LHP, 2023 WL 2527046, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2023) (denying without prejudice Clerk's default under Rule 4(h)(1)(B), where service was made on an office manager of LLC); Hess Corp. v. Fla.-Georgia Trucking, Inc., No. 3:08-cv-883-J-34TEM, 2009 WL 248236, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2009) (“[A] position as office manager does not fit in any of the categories prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(Β)."). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file a r…1 / 2
-
Matero v. Digit. Ink Americas LLC (M.D. Fla. 2023)…. No. 16, the return of service does not state the address at which service was effected, see Doc. No. 13. on “Rose Garcia Office Manager” would suffice under Rule 4(h)(1)(B). Cf Hess Corp. v. Fla.-Georgia Trucking, Inc., No. 3:08-cv-883-J-34TEM, 2009 WL 248236, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2009) (“Even if it is assumed, in arguendo, that Mr. Walton was employed by Defendant, his position as office manager does not fit in any of the categories prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B).”). Cf also Coha…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Scherer (M.D. Fla. 2026)
- Leister v. Legal Action Bureau, Inc., 2009 WL 248236 (M.D. Fla. 2024)