PISTORELLO

v.

SUPRICEL PARTICIPACOES LTDA

ACTION AGAINST LUIS GUILHERME SCHNOR, INDIVIDUALLY (Doc. No. 28) FILED: October 4, 2022

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. On April 6, 2021, Petitioners Ivanilde Pistorello and Augusto Grando filed a Petition to Confirm International Arbitration Award entered against Respondent Supricel Participacoes LTDA, issued by the Center of Arbitration and Mediation of the Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada. Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”). Petitioners also seek to have judgment entered against Respondent Luis Guilherme Schnor individually, pursuant to Brazilian Civil Code. Id.

After filing the Petition, Petitioners filed a Request for Execution of Applications for Service Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents. Doc. No. 11. See also Doc. Nos. 9–10. In that Request, Petitioners stated that Respondents are residents of Brazil, Petitioners sought to effectuate service through Article 5 of the Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, and the Hague Convention requires the Court to execute Applications for Service Abroad. Id. Based upon Petitioners’ representation that Court approval of the Request for Service was required under the Hague Convention, the Court issued Requests for Service on June 2, 2021. Doc. No. 12. Upon Court Order, Petitioners have provided status reports regarding the status of service. See Doc. Nos. 13–17, 21–22. See also Doc. Nos. 18–20. Petitioners’ latest status report, filed on September 21, 2022, provides, in pertinent part, the following update regarding service and seeks default against Respondent Schnor as follows:

Defendant Guilherme Schnor (“Schnor”) was served through the Superior Court on August 24, 2021. Schnor asserted defenses to the service. On October 1, 2021, the Superior Court rejected the defenses and Mr. Schnor appealed which took months to adjudicate. After Schnor’s appeals were exhausted, the Brazil Ministry of Justice executed the Certificate of Service attached as Exhibit “A,” on August 17, 2022, validating service on Schnor. However, the Certificate of service was not received by Ancillary until September 2, 2017. The Certificate is in Portuguese, English and French. Twenty-One days has elapsed since all appeals were finalized in Brazil and the Certificate of Service was issued by the Ministry of Justice. No response to the Complaint has been filed by Schnor. Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled to a default against Defendant Schnor. Doc. No. 22, at 2. The request for default has been referred to the undersigned. The day after Petitioners’ request for default, counsel appeared on behalf of Respondents. Doc. No. 23. Respondent Schnor responds in opposition to the request for default against him. Doc. No. 24. On October 4, 2022, he also filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the Petition. Doc. No. 28. 1 Petitioners oppose the request. Doc. No. 29. The motion has also been referred to the undersigned for disposition.2

Upon consideration, to the extent that Petitioners seek default against Respondent Schnor, that request will be denied without prejudice because the motion, see Doc. No. 22, fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a) by failing to include a memorandum of legal authority in support. Moreover, the Court finds

Respondent Schnor’s request for an extension of time to respond to the Petition well taken and supported by good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). See Doc. No. 28, at 2. Notably, the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly held that there is a strong policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits and that defaults are viewed with disfavor. See In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F. 3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2003). See also Florida Physician's Ins. Co. v. Ehlers, 8 F. 3d 780, 783 (11th Cir. 1993) (“We note that defaults are seen with disfavor because of the strong policy of determining

LESLIE NOFFIIAN PRICE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties