Michael Van Dobbs v. Chad Youker

M.D. Tennessee

Michael Van Dobbs v. Chad Youker

DecidedMarch 19, 2026

Docket3:25-cv-01172

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Michael Van Dobbs v. Chad Youker, (M.D. Tenn. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL VAN DOBBS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 3:25-cv-01172 v. ) ) Chief Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. CHAD YOUKER, ) Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion Entry of Default against Defendant. (Doc. No. 26). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 10, 2025. (Doc. No. 1). The U.S. Marshal Service returned a Process Receipt and Return Form USM285 and Proof of Service Declaration on December 15, 2025, confirming service upon Defendant Youker on December 11, 2025. (Doc. No. 16). Defendant Youker timely filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 2, 2026. (Doc. No. 21). Plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Entry of Default on January 5, 2026. (Doc. No. 26). The Sixth Circuit has expressed a “strong preference for trials on the merits.” United States v. Real Prop., All Furnishings Known as Bridwell's Grocery, 195 F.3d 819, 820 (6th Cir. 1999) quoting Shepard Claims Serv., Inc. v. William Darrah & Assocs., 796 F.2d 190, 193 (6th Cir. 1986); United States v. $22,050.00 U.S. Currency, 595 F.3d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 2010) “Where a defendant appears and indicates a desire to contest an action a court may exercise its discretion to refuse to enter default, in accordance with the policy of allowing cases to be tried on the merits.” Winder v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-02993-SHL-ATC, 2025 WL 2816754, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. July 18, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-CV-02993-SHL-ATC, 2025 WL 2718545 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 24, 2025) (quoting Wendt v. Pratt, 154 F.R.D. 229, 230 (D. Minn. 1994). By filing a timely Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, the Clerk finds that Defendant is not in default and has clearly expressed his intent to defend this action. Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of

Default, (Doc. No. 26), is DENIED.

s/ Lynda M. Hill Lynda M. Hill Clerk of 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 TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL VAN DOBBS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 3:25-cv-01172 v. ) ) Chief Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. CHAD YOUKER, ) Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion Entry of Default against Defendant. (Doc. No. 26). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 10, 2025. (Doc. No. 1). The U.S. Marshal Service returned a Process Receipt and Return Form USM285 and Proof of Service Declaration on December 15, 2025, confirming service upon Defendant Youker on December 11, 2025. (Doc. No. 16). Defendant Youker timely filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 2, 2026. (Doc. No. 21). Plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Entry of Default on January 5, 2026. (Doc. No. 26). The Sixth Circuit has expressed a “strong preference for trials on the merits.” United States v. Real Prop., All Furnishings Known as Bridwell's Grocery, 195 F.3d 819, 820 (6th Cir. 1999) quoting Shepard Claims Serv., Inc. v. William Darrah & Assocs., 796 F.2d 190, 193 (6th Cir. 1986); United States v. $22,050.00 U.S. Currency, 595 F.3d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 2010) “Where a defendant appears and indicates a desire to contest an action a court may exercise its discretion to refuse to enter default, in accordance with the policy of allowing cases to be tried on the merits.” Winder v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-02993-SHL-ATC, 2025 WL 2816754, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. July 18, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-CV-02993-SHL-ATC, 2025 WL 2718545 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 24, 2025) (quoting Wendt v. Pratt, 154 F.R.D. 229, 230 (D. Minn. 1994). By filing a timely Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, the Clerk finds that Defendant is not in default and has clearly expressed his intent to defend this action. Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of

Default, (Doc. No. 26), is DENIED.

s/ Lynda M. Hill Lynda M. Hill Clerk of Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Michael Van Dobbs v. Chad Youker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-van-dobbs-v-chad-youker-tnmd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack