Herman v. The Mr. Cooper Group Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

KATHLEEN HERMAN and JEFFREY GHIAZZA,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 2:23-cv-948-JES-KCD

THE MR. COOPER GROUP INC.,

Defendant. / ORDER Plaintiffs Kathleen Herman and Jeffrey Ghiazza seek a Clerk’s default against Defendant the Mr. Cooper Group, Inc. (Doc. 73.) The motion is DENIED because Defendant has appeared and defended itself by filing a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). A Clerk’s default is not proper on such facts. See, e.g., Wagner v. Potter, No. 2:03CV511FTM-99DNF, 2006 WL 2935252, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2006) (denying motion for default where “the government appeared by filing a Rule 12(e) Motion for More Definite Statement”); Montecalvo v. Brandon Auto Clinic, Inc., No. 8:07-CV-851-T-30MSS, 2007 WL 2155581, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 26, 2007) (“The Rule does not contemplate the entry of default only upon a defendant's failure to answer, but rather upon a defendant's failure to respond or defend against the allegations in a complaint. A Motion for more Definite Statement clearly is an attempt by Defendants to defend against the allegations in the Complaint.”). ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 8, 2024.

i —_— .

* Keéle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge

Copies: All Parties of Record