Rouzard v. Ed Morse Cadillac Brandon

M.D. Florida

Rouzard v. Ed Morse Cadillac Brandon

DecidedJanuary 22, 2025

Docket6:24-cv-02069

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Rouzard v. Ed Morse Cadillac Brandon, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

DIANSKY ROUZARD,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 6:24-cv-2069-PGB-UAM

ED MORSE CADILLAC BRANDON,

Defendant. ________________________________/

ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the undersigned on Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of Default (“Motion”). Doc. 15. In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks entry of a Clerk’s default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Id. at 1. Proper service is a prerequisite to a clerk’s default. See Staley v. Health First, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-621-CEM-LHP, 2024 WL 2815858, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 3, 2024). The “proof of service” upon which Plaintiff relies in the Motion indicates that Plaintiff emailed a copy of the Complaint to Defendant accompanied by a “summons” apparently prepared by Plaintiff that, among other defects, is not signed by the Clerk and does not bear the Court’s seal. See Doc. 7; Doc. 7-1; Doc. 7-2; see also Doc. 15 at 1. Plaintiff cites no authority that such constitutes proper service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; see also Chavez v. Grill Enterprises, LLC, No. 20-cv-22603, 2022 WL 4244017, at *2 n.1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2022); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Berfa Tires Corp., No. 6:20-cv- 2218-WWB-GJK, 2021 WL 8895131, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 19, 2021); Martinez v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., No. 5:11-cv-580-Oc-10TBS, 2012 WL 140496, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2012). Accordingly, the Motion (Doc. 15) is denied without prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on January 22, 2025.

[Z J. Horovitz United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: Pro Se Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

DIANSKY ROUZARD,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 6:24-cv-2069-PGB-UAM

ED MORSE CADILLAC BRANDON,

Defendant. ________________________________/

ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the undersigned on Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of Default (“Motion”). Doc. 15. In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks entry of a Clerk’s default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Id. at 1. Proper service is a prerequisite to a clerk’s default. See Staley v. Health First, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-621-CEM-LHP, 2024 WL 2815858, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 3, 2024). The “proof of service” upon which Plaintiff relies in the Motion indicates that Plaintiff emailed a copy of the Complaint to Defendant accompanied by a “summons” apparently prepared by Plaintiff that, among other defects, is not signed by the Clerk and does not bear the Court’s seal. See Doc. 7; Doc. 7-1; Doc. 7-2; see also Doc. 15 at 1. Plaintiff cites no authority that such constitutes proper service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; see also Chavez v. Grill Enterprises, LLC, No. 20-cv-22603, 2022 WL 4244017, at *2 n.1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2022); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Berfa Tires Corp., No. 6:20-cv- 2218-WWB-GJK, 2021 WL 8895131, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 19, 2021); Martinez v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., No. 5:11-cv-580-Oc-10TBS, 2012 WL 140496, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2012). Accordingly, the Motion (Doc. 15) is denied without prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on January 22, 2025.

[Z J. Horovitz United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: Pro Se Plaintiff

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rouzard v. Ed Morse Cadillac Brandon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rouzard-v-ed-morse-cadillac-brandon-flmd-2025.