GS HOLISTIC, LLC
v.
PRSN, LLC
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 granted the plaintiff's motion for entry of clerk's default against Sara Mahmuda.
Plaintiff sued defendants for trademark infringement. Defendant Sara Mahmuda was personally served but failed to appear or file a responsive pleading.…
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 Counterfeiting cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Clerk’s Default against Defendant, Sara Mahmuda (the “Motion”) (Doc. 32), filed August 7, 2023. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is due to be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant PRSN, LLC, and Sara Mahmuda for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and false designation of origin and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051–1141n. (Doc. 1).1 The Proof of Service affidavit reflects that Sara Mahmuda was personally served on July 12, 2023. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiff now seeks entry of a clerk’s default against Mahmuda for her failure to appear in this case. (Doc. 32.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“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 party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Before the clerk may enter default, he or she must determine that effective service has been made on the defaulting defendant because, without effective service, there is no jurisdiction and no obligation to answer or “otherwise defend.” See Kelly v. Florida, 233 F. App’x 883, 885
(11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished).
III. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides that service on an individual may be perfected by “delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(A). The Proof of Service indicates that
Mahmuda was personally served. (Doc. 31.) As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff perfected service of process on her pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e). As Mahmuda was served on July 12, 2023, and more than 21 days have passed with no responsive pleading filed, default is appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i).
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Motion (Doc. 32) is GRANTED. 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter default as to Defendant Sara Mahmuda. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on September 14, 2023.