Carmon v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: April 25, 2024
• Docket: 4:22-cv-03534
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 25, 2024 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

§ Patsy E. Carmon and Kimberlee § Carmon, § § Plaintiffs, § Case No. 4:22-cv-03534 § v. § § Carrington Mortgage Services, § LLC, § § Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT In their objections to the Court’s prior order modifying the scheduling order, Plaintiffs Patsy E. Carmon and Kimberlee Carmon (the “Carmons”) embedded a request for entry of default judgment. See Dkt. 34 at 1. The Carmons complain that Defendant Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC failed to timely serve its answer to the amended complaint, even though Carrington timely filed it with the Court.1 Dkt. 26 (answer filed January 18, 2024); see also Dkt. 23 (extending answer deadline that date). Carrington responds that its counsel inadvertently failed to send a copy of the answer to the Carmons

1 The rest of the Carmons’s brief raises allegations about the merits of their claims. Those contentions provide no basis for default judgment nor any other disposition at this stage. and was alerted to the issue on January 31, 2024. Dkt. 87 at 2. Carrington then remedied its prior lack of service. See id. Under these circumstances, Carmons are not entitled to a default judgment. “Because of the seriousness of a default judgment ... federal courts should not be agnostic with respect to the entry of default judgments, which

are ‘generally disfavored in the law and thus ‘should not be granted on the claim, without more, that the defendant had failed to meet a procedural requirement.” Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co. v. Metal Trades Council, 726 F.2d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1984)). Instead, courts also consider whether “the defendant acted expeditiously to correct the default.” Jd. Gnternal quotation marks omitted). Here, Carrington had already appeared in this case, prevailing in part on its motion to dismiss the Carmons’ original claims. See Dkt. 25 (adopting Dkt. 19). Carrington also timely filed its answer to the amended complaint. Dkt. 29. And the lack of service was promptly rectified once Carrington realized its omission. Default judgment is therefore inappropriate. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Carmons’ request for default judgment (Dkt. 34 at 1) be DENIED. Signed on April 25, 2024, at Houston, Texas.

Yvonne Y, United States Magistrate Judge