Pluviose v. PHH Mortgage

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

GERALD PLUVIOSE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-CV-988-JLB v.

PHH MORTGAGE, RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Defendants, /

ORDER Plaintiff Gerald Pluviose moves for a clerk’s default against two defendants—PHH Mortgage and Rushmore Loan Management (collectively “Defendants”). (Doc. 33.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants stand in default because they did not answer by the deadline for responsive pleadings. (Id.) Plaintiff’s motion fails because the Court granted Defendants an extension of time to answer the latest complaint (Doc. 32), which has not expired. Thus, Defendants are not in default. What is more, Defendants have appeared and are defending the case. See, e.g., 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.”). For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Default (Doc. 33) is DENIED. ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 2, 2025.

we ee fi ,

© Kale C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge