MURRAY
v.
TAYLOR
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 applications for default judgment as premature and denied the motion for clarification.
The plaintiff filed applications for default judgment before obtaining a clerk's default and while the defendants' response deadline was extended. The…
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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:
MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 7)
FILED: February 16, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 8)
FILED: February 16, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff's requests for default judgment are premature both because Plaintiff has yet to obtain entry of Clerk's default and because the deadline by which Defendants may respond to the complaint has been extended to March 18, 2024. See Doc. No. 12. Accordingly, Defendants are not yet in default, which is a prerequisite for obtaining default judgment. See Brantley v. Drug Enf' t Admin., No. 2:15-cv-802-FtM-29CM, 2016 WL 7440836, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2016) (under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, “a Clerk's default must be entered prior to the entry of default judgment.").
MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS'
OPPOSITION TO APPLICATIONS FOR DEFAULT
AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 14)
FILED: February 22, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendants' opposition (Doc. No. 11) to Plaintiff's default judgment motions is denied as moot given the denial of Plaintiff's motions for default judgment.
MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF
LEGAL REASONING FOR GRANTING
EXTENSION (Doc. No. 15)
FILED: February 22, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
Upon consideration, to the extent Plaintiff's motion for clarification is construed as a motion to reconsider the Court's Order granting Defendants' request for additional time to respond to the Complaint (Doc. No. 12), the motion does not comply with any of the legal standards for reconsideration. See Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994) (“[C]ourts have delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice."). See also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989) (a pro se litigant "is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."). Moreover, the Order speaks for itself and requires no further clarification. If Plaintiff has further questions about applicable legal standards, because Plaintiff is currently proceeding without a lawyer, the undersigned directs his attention to the Court's website, http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov. On the Court's homepage, Plaintiff can find basic information and resources for parties who are proceeding without a lawyer in a civil case by clicking on the "For Litigants" tab and then clicking on "Litigants without Lawyers."
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 28, 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
-
Murray v. Taylor, 2016 WL 7440836 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…may respond to the complaint has been extended to March 18, 2024. See Doc. No. 12. Accordingly, Defendants are not yet in default, which is a prerequisite for obtaining default judgment. See Brantley v. Drug Enf' t Admin., No. 2:15-cv-802-FtM-29CM, 2016 WL 7440836, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2016) (under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, “a Clerk's default must be entered prior to the entry of default judgment."). MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO APPLICATIONS FOR DEFAULT AND FO…
-
Curtis v. Best Care Senior Living at Port Richey, LLC, 2016 WL 7440836 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…re 55(a) governs clerks' entries of default, while Rule 55(b) discusses court's entries of default judgment. “[A] Clerk's default must be entered prior to the entry of default judgment." Brantley v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. 2:15-cv-802-FtM–29CM, 2016 WL 7440836, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2016). Pursuant to Rule 55(a), "When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the p…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Moon v. Lanson Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Flores-Dominguez v. United States, 493 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1989)
- LoRusso v. Warden, N. Fla. Evaluation & Treatment Ctr. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
- Murray v. Taylor, 2016 WL 7440836 (M.D. Fla. 2024)