Chapman v. City of Montgomery

M.D. Alabama

Chapman v. City of Montgomery

DecidedOctober 17, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-00346

StatusUnknown

This text of Chapman v. City of Montgomery (Chapman v. City of Montgomery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chapman v. City of Montgomery, (M.D. Ala. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

ROBIN CHAPMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL CASE NO. 2:23-cv-346-ECM ) [WO] CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Now pending before the Court is the Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against the Defendants, (doc. 16), filed on October 16, 2023. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs the procedure for obtaining a default judgment and creates a two-step procedure for obtaining a default judgment against an unresponsive party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. An entry of default must precede an entry of a default judgment. When a defendant “has failed to plead or otherwise defend,” and the plaintiff demonstrates that failure, the clerk must enter the defendant’s default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). After entry of default, the plaintiff “must apply to the court for a default judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). The Plaintiff has not applied for entry of default against the Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Thus, the motion for entry of default judgment is premature. Additionally, on October 16, 2023, the Defendants responded to the Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, (doc. 19), and moved for leave to file their answer out of time (doc. 18). The Court thus acknowledges that the adversarial process has no longer been halted. Flynn v. Angelucci Bros. & Sons, Inc., 448 F. Supp. 2d 193, 195 (D. D.C. 2006) (“While modern courts do not favor default judgments, they are certainly appropriate when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party.”)

(citation omitted). Accordingly, for the reasons as stated, and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the motion for default judgment (doc. 16) is DENIED. Done this 17th day of October, 2023.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

ROBIN CHAPMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL CASE NO. 2:23-cv-346-ECM ) [WO] CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Now pending before the Court is the Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against the Defendants, (doc. 16), filed on October 16, 2023. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs the procedure for obtaining a default judgment and creates a two-step procedure for obtaining a default judgment against an unresponsive party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. An entry of default must precede an entry of a default judgment. When a defendant “has failed to plead or otherwise defend,” and the plaintiff demonstrates that failure, the clerk must enter the defendant’s default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). After entry of default, the plaintiff “must apply to the court for a default judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). The Plaintiff has not applied for entry of default against the Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Thus, the motion for entry of default judgment is premature. Additionally, on October 16, 2023, the Defendants responded to the Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, (doc. 19), and moved for leave to file their answer out of time (doc. 18). The Court thus acknowledges that the adversarial process has no longer been halted. Flynn v. Angelucci Bros. & Sons, Inc., 448 F. Supp. 2d 193, 195 (D. D.C. 2006) (“While modern courts do not favor default judgments, they are certainly appropriate when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party.”)

(citation omitted). Accordingly, for the reasons as stated, and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the motion for default judgment (doc. 16) is DENIED. Done this 17th day of October, 2023.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chapman v. City of Montgomery, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-city-of-montgomery-almd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack