GS Holistic, LLC v. Wireless & Smoke LLC

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI IN RE: G PEN LITIG. : THIS DOCUMENT PERTAINS TO: . Case No. 1:23-cv-748 PLAINTIFF GS HOLISTIC, LLC, AND DEFENDANTS MIT VED . LLC, d/b/a ROOSEVELT SMOKE Mee \adastieeeel 2 MI & VAPE, MIT PATEL, FYRE ag. Juage Michael h. Were FLAME HIGH, LLC, d/b/a FYRE : FLAME SMOKE SHOP, AND SHARAD PATEL.

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF GS HOLISTIC TO PROVIDE PROOF OF SERVICE OF MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS FYRE FLAME HIGH, LLC, d/b/a FYRE FLAME SMOKE SHOP, AND SHARAD PATEL (DOC. #43) WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OF THIS ENTRY; ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS MIT VED LLC, d/b/a ROOSEVELT SMOKE & VAPE, AND MIT PATEL WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OF THIS ENTRY; AND OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS ROOSEVELT AND MIT PATEL (DOC. #40) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL IF ROOSEVELT AND MIT PATEL DO NOT RESPOND WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OF THE ENTRY OF DEFAULT

This case is before the Court on the Motions for Default Judgment of Plaintiff GS Holistic, LLC, against Defendants Mit Ved LLC, d/b/a Roosevelt Smoke & Vape (“Roosevelt”), and Mit Patel (Roosevelt Motion, No. 1:23-cv-748', Doc. #40), and against Defendants Fyre Flame High, LLC, d/b/a Fyre Flame Smoke Shop (“Fyre Flame”), and Sharad Patel. (Fyre Flame Motion, Doc. #43). On June 11,

1 Unless otherwise specified, all docket entries refer to the consolidated Case No. 1:23-cv-748.

2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to move for default against Defendants Fyre Flame and Sharad Patel (Order, Doc. #38, PAGEID 217) and for Clerk's Entry of Default against Defendants Roosevelt and Mit Patel (Doc. #39, PAGEID 220). On June 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed Motions for Default Judgment against Roosevelt and Mit Patel (Doc. #40), and against Fyre Flame and Sharad Patel. (Doc. #43). However, Defendants Fyre Flame and Sharad Patel are not represented by counsel, and Plaintiff did not file proof of service with the Court. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is ORDERED to file proof of service of the Motion for Default Judgment within fourteen (14) days of this entry. If Plaintiff does so, then the Court will consider the Fyre Flame Motion; if Plaintiff fails to do so, then the Court will overrule the Fyre Flame Motion without prejudice to renewal. Moreover, a Clerk’s Entry of Default was never entered against Roosevelt and Mit Patel, meaning that the Roosevelt Motion (Doc. #40) must be OVERRULED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. See, e.g., Devlin v. Calm, 493 F. App’x 678, 685 (6th Cir. 2012) (“[I]t was procedurally improper for Plaintiff to move for entry of default judgment without first obtaining an entry of default from the clerk). Plaintiff is ORDERED to apply to the Clerk of Court for an entry of default against Roosevelt and Mit Patel within fourteen (14) days of this entry. If Plaintiff makes a timely application, and Roosevelt and Mit Patel do not respond within fourteen (14) days of the entry of default, then Plaintiff may renew the Roosevelt Motion.

IT |S SO ORDERED. bless pe Ree September 16, 2025 WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT