COOLEY
v.
AMER SM ASIF
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 clerk's default because the motion failed to comply with local rules and did not establish proper service of process on the defendants.
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, moved for a clerk's default against three defendants. The returns of service indicated service was made on 'Jenn Bautista…
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 3.01(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
AVIATION (USA) INC. AND WILLIAM REVIS (Doc. No. 46) FILED: October 16, 2023
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, moves for Clerk’s default against Defendants Amer S.M. Asif, Menzies Aviation (USA) Inc., and William Revis. Doc. No. 46. Upon review, however, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a).
Relatedly, the motion fails to establish, with citation to legal authority, that service of process on Defendants 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, the returns of service state that service was effected on each Defendant by serving “Jenn Bautista,” who is “designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of” Menzies Aviation (USA) Inc., and in turn, the individual Defendants. Doc. No. 44. But there is no indication who “Jenn Bautista” is, or where said service was effected. See id. Plaintiff provides an address for service in his motion that is not reflected on the returns of service, see Doc. No. 46, at 2, and is not otherwise listed for Menzies Aviation (USA) Inc. in records from the Florida Department of State.'_ And to the extent Plaintiff is suggesting that “Jenn Bautista” is an employee of Menzies Aviation (USA) Inc.’s registered agent, the returns of service fail to stateas much. See Doc. No.44. Moreover, even assuming that “Jenn Bautista” is an employee of Menzies Aviation (USA) Inc.’s registered agent, Plaintiff's motion fails to establish that service on “Jenn Bautista” was sufficient to effect proper service on the individual Defendants (Asif and Revis) under governing law. See Doc. No. 44, at 2-3. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 46) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion on or before October 31, 2023, which must establish, with citation to applicable legal authority, that service of process on each Defendant was proper under governing law. A renewed motion may be supported by amended returns of service, as appropriate. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 17, 2023.
LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties