TORO
v.
UNITE HERE 362
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 motion for default without prejudice because it failed to comply with local rules and establish proper service on Defendant Unite Here 362.
Plaintiff filed a motion for default. The motion did not comply with local rules regarding service and did not establish that service was properly eff…
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 Rules Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
Case No: 6:23-cv-01059-WWB-LHP This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: DEFAULT MOTION (Doc. No. 40) FILED: February 21, 2024 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice. The motion fails to comply with the Local Rules, including Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g). In addition, the motion fails to address whether service has been effected on Defendant Unite Here 362, much less establish that service on Unite Here 362 was proper. See Doc. No. 24, at 11-12 (discussing Unite Here 362's
argument that Plaintiff failed to properly effect service of the initial complaint, and requiring proof of service on amendment);¹ Doc. No. 37 (adopting Doc. No. 24); see also 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). Any renewed motion must fully comply with the Local Rules and demonstrate that Defendant Unite Here 362 has been properly served. Plaintiff has previously been cautioned that although she proceeds pro se, she is still obligated to comply with all applicable Court Orders, Local Rules, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. E.g., Doc. Nos. 33, 36. Plaintiff is now cautioned that future failures to comply may result in the imposition of sanctions. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 21, 2024. LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record[*3]
Unrepresented Parties
[fn 1]: After issuance of the Report regarding Plaintiff's initial complaint and Defendants' motions to dismiss (Doc. No. 24), Plaintiff filed a Return of Service stating that Unite Here 362 was served by delivering process to "Adam Beaton” as “Administrative Assistant." Doc. No. 25. But the present motion makes no attempt to demonstrate that such service of the initial complaint was proper, and it is not clear whether formal service of the amended complaint was required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. -2-