DEPALMA v. KERNS

M.D. Georgia

DEPALMA v. KERNS

DecidedJuly 13, 2022

Docket5:22-cv-00091

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

DEPALMA v. KERNS, (M.D. Ga. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

RACHEL DEPALMA, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-91 (MTT) ) SAMANTHA KERNS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ )

ORDER Plaintiff Rachel DePalma filed this action against Defendants Samantha Kerns, Laurinda Kirk, and Tracy Korslund on March 2, 2022. Doc. 1. In her complaint, DePalma contends the defendants are jointly and several liable for defamation, false light, and civil conspiracy based on the defendants’ publication of false and defamatory statements on TikTok and Instagram. Id. at 14-18. Defendants Kerns and Kirk timely filed an answer and are defending the case. Docs. 7; 13. Defendant Korslund, however, did not and is now in default. Doc. 14. DePalma now moves for default judgment against Korslund. Doc. 15. Generally speaking, a Court may enter a default judgment against a party for failure to plead or otherwise defend a case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. However, “in cases involving multiple defendants, some of whom are not in default, courts should withhold granting a default judgment until the trial of the action on the merits against the remaining defendants.” Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 378 F. Supp. 3d 1213, 1221 (M.D. Ga. 2019); see also Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872) (stating that “a final decree on the merits against the defaulting defendant alone, pending the continuance of the cause [against the other defendants], would be incongruous and illegal”); Gulf Coast Fans v. Midwest Electronics Importers, Inc., 740 F.2d 1499, 1512 (11th Cir. 1984) (stating that it is “sound policy” that “judgment should not be entered

against a defaulting defendant if the other [similarly situated or jointly liable] defendant prevails on the merits.”). Accordingly, DePalma’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 15) is DENIED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 13th day of July, 2022. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

RACHEL DEPALMA, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-91 (MTT) ) SAMANTHA KERNS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ )

ORDER Plaintiff Rachel DePalma filed this action against Defendants Samantha Kerns, Laurinda Kirk, and Tracy Korslund on March 2, 2022. Doc. 1. In her complaint, DePalma contends the defendants are jointly and several liable for defamation, false light, and civil conspiracy based on the defendants’ publication of false and defamatory statements on TikTok and Instagram. Id. at 14-18. Defendants Kerns and Kirk timely filed an answer and are defending the case. Docs. 7; 13. Defendant Korslund, however, did not and is now in default. Doc. 14. DePalma now moves for default judgment against Korslund. Doc. 15. Generally speaking, a Court may enter a default judgment against a party for failure to plead or otherwise defend a case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. However, “in cases involving multiple defendants, some of whom are not in default, courts should withhold granting a default judgment until the trial of the action on the merits against the remaining defendants.” Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 378 F. Supp. 3d 1213, 1221 (M.D. Ga. 2019); see also Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872) (stating that “a final decree on the merits against the defaulting defendant alone, pending the continuance of the cause [against the other defendants], would be incongruous and illegal”); Gulf Coast Fans v. Midwest Electronics Importers, Inc., 740 F.2d 1499, 1512 (11th Cir. 1984) (stating that it is “sound policy” that “judgment should not be entered

against a defaulting defendant if the other [similarly situated or jointly liable] defendant prevails on the merits.”). Accordingly, DePalma’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 15) is DENIED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 13th day of July, 2022. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

DEPALMA v. KERNS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/depalma-v-kerns-gamd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack