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 plaintiff's motion for default judgment because it was premature and failed to comply with procedural rules.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, moved for default judgment against the defendants. The motion was filed before a Clerk's default was obtained and before…
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 Proper Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 6) FILED: July 17, 2023
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, moves for default judgment against Defendants. Doc. No. 6. On review, the motion will be denied for several reasons. First, the motion fails to comply with the Local Rules, including Local Rules 1.081 and 3.01(a).
2012 WL 12904224, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 12904225 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2012) (citation and quotation marks omitted) (“[T]he clerk’s entry of default must precede an application for default judgment.”). Third, even construing the motion as one requesting Clerk’s default, the motion is still premature on the date of filing, given that Plaintiff contends that service occurred on June 26, 2023. Doc. Nos. 5–6. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). Moreover, before a Clerk’s default can be entered against a defendant, the Court must determine that the defendant was properly served, see, e.g., United States v. Donald, No. 3:09-cv-147-J-32HTS, 2009 WL 1810357, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2009), which the above-styled motion fails to address and/or establish. Notably, since the filing of the motion, one of the Defendants—TCU Lodge 1908—has appeared in the case. See Doc. No. 7.
Fla. Jan. 13, 2021), available at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/standing-order-judgeberger-revised-local-rules. For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 6) is
DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 18, 2023.
Ayr [...]
LESLIE AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties