JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.
v.
KIRBY
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 entry of default because it failed to comply with local rules and adequately demonstrate proper service of process on the defendants.
Plaintiff sought a clerk's default against defendants for failing to appear after being served. The motion was deficient in several respects, includin…
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 Local Rule 1.08 cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:
MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT (Doc. No. 11)
FILED: April 12, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
By the above-styled motion, Plaintiff seeks Clerk's default against both Defendants, stating that Defendants were served with summonses and the complaint on December 21, 2023, but have failed to appear or otherwise defend.
Doc. No. 11; see also Doc. Nos. 8-9. Upon review, however, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 1.08 and the presiding District Judge's January 13, 2021 Standing Order. See In re: Local Rule Amendments, No. 6:21-mc-3-Orl-WWB, Doc. No. 1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2021), available at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/standing-order-judge-berger-revised-local-rules.
In addition, the motion fails to include a memorandum of legal authority in support as required by Local Rule 3.01(a). [fn 1] Relatedly, the motion fails to adequately address, with citation to legal authority, that service of process on Defendants was proper, in particular that service on Defendant Westside Sportsbar & Lounge Inc., by serving "Betty Carter, Bartender and highest ranking employee on duty," was sufficient under governing law. 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).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion within fourteen (14) days of this Order, which must include a memorandum of legal authority establishing that service of process
on both Defendants was proper under applicable law. The renewed motion shall not include a proposed order. See Local Rule 3.01(j).
This Order does not address the April 10, 2024 Order to Show Cause (Doc. No. 10), nor Plaintiff's deadline to respond thereto, which remain outstanding.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 12, 2024.
Leslie Hoffman Price
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
[fn 1]: Lone citations to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 55 do not suffice.