NOSHIRVAN
v.
COUTURE
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 denied Plaintiff's motion for clerk's default against Defendant Central Park South, LLC, finding that the defendant's failure to answer the amended complaint was not willful or in bad faith, as the defendant believed a replacement entity would handle the litigation.
A clerk's default is not proper where a defendant has appeared through counsel, conferred with the plaintiff regarding its answer, and asserts meritorious defenses, particularly when the defendant's failure to answer was not willful or in bad faith.
“The Rule does not contemplate the entry of default only upon a defendant's failure to answer, but rather upon a defendant's failure to respond or defend against the allegations in a complaint.”
Establishes the legal standard for when default is appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff moved for entry of a clerk's default against Defendant Central Park South, LLC for failing to respond to an amended complaint. Central Park …
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 Clerk'S Default cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff moves for the entry of a clerk's default against Defendant Central Park South, LLC. (Doc. 73.) Central Park South responded in opposition. (Doc. 85.) Central Park South explains that it did not respond to the amended complaint because it is a “name only” company with no assets, and Defendant Central Park of Southwest Florida (“SW”) was formed in its place. Central Park South asserts that its failure to answer was not willful or the product of bad faith, as it believed SW's replacement would obviate the need to respond. (Doc. 85 at 5.)
A clerk's default is not proper on such facts. See, e.g., Montecalvo v. Brandon Auto Clinic, Inc., No. 8:07-CV-851-T-30MSS, 2007 WL 2155581, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 26, 2007) (“The Rule does not contemplate the entry of default only upon a defendant's failure to answer, but rather upon a defendant's failure to respond or defend against the allegations in a complaint."). Central Park South has appeared through counsel and conferred with Plaintiff concerning its answer. And Central Park South asserts that it has meritorious defenses that weigh against entering a clerk's default. Because “defaults are seen with disfavor [given] the strong policy of determining cases on their merits,” Fla. Physician's Ins. Co., Inc. v. Ehlers, 8 F. 3d 780, 783 (11th Cir. 1993), the request for clerk's default (Doc. 73) is DENIED. Central Park South, LLC must respond to the amended complaint by June 3, 2024.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 24, 2024.
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Physician's Ins. Co., Inc. v. Ehlers, 8 F.3d 780 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Pluviose v. PHH Mortg., 2007 WL 2155581 (M.D. Fla. 2025)