Sanders v. SQA Mahadev, LLC

W.D. Tennessee

Sanders v. SQA Mahadev, LLC

DecidedApril 24, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-02165

StatusUnknown

This text of Sanders v. SQA Mahadev, LLC (Sanders v. SQA Mahadev, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sanders v. SQA Mahadev, LLC, (W.D. Tenn. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

SHAMONA SANDERS, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:23-cv-2165-SHL-cgc ) SQA MAHADEV, LLC, ) d/b/a OYO TOWNHOUSE, ) Defendant. ) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Plaintiff Shamona Sanders’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (ECF No. 39), filed April 18, 2024. Because entry of default was not sought first, the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 establishes a two-step process for obtaining default judgment “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). First, if “that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Id. Second, unless Rule 55(b)(1) applies, “the party must apply to the court for a default judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Even though Defendant SQA Mahadev, LLC (“Mahadev”) has seemingly refused to participate in this litigation since the first hearing on the motion to withdraw as counsel on January 2, 2024, (ECF No. 26), this motion for default judgment is still premature. Sanders must initiate “the first step, seeking entry of default from the clerk of court.” See Dahl v. Kanawha Inv. Holding Co., 161 F.R.D. 673, 683 (N.D. Iowa 1995). Because that first step has not been completed, the motion “for default judgment [is] not on the proper procedural footing.” Id. The Court DIRECTS Sanders to file a motion for entry of default, pursuant to Rule 55(a), along with an affidavit or other competent proof of Mahadev’s failure to defend. Accordingly, Sanders’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to email this Order to quepatel@icloud.com

and mail it to the following addresses: SQA Mahadev, LLC dba Oyo Townhouse registered agent, Mr. Qunishbhai Patel 6101 Shelby Oaks Drive Memphis, TN 38134

SQA Mahadev, LLC c/o Faisal Jiwani 6819 Crumpler Boulevard, Suite 100 Olive Branch, Mississippi 38654

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 24th day of April, 2024. s/ Sheryl H. Lipman SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

SHAMONA SANDERS, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:23-cv-2165-SHL-cgc ) SQA MAHADEV, LLC, ) d/b/a OYO TOWNHOUSE, ) Defendant. ) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Plaintiff Shamona Sanders’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (ECF No. 39), filed April 18, 2024. Because entry of default was not sought first, the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 establishes a two-step process for obtaining default judgment “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). First, if “that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Id. Second, unless Rule 55(b)(1) applies, “the party must apply to the court for a default judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Even though Defendant SQA Mahadev, LLC (“Mahadev”) has seemingly refused to participate in this litigation since the first hearing on the motion to withdraw as counsel on January 2, 2024, (ECF No. 26), this motion for default judgment is still premature. Sanders must initiate “the first step, seeking entry of default from the clerk of court.” See Dahl v. Kanawha Inv. Holding Co., 161 F.R.D. 673, 683 (N.D. Iowa 1995). Because that first step has not been completed, the motion “for default judgment [is] not on the proper procedural footing.” Id. The Court DIRECTS Sanders to file a motion for entry of default, pursuant to Rule 55(a), along with an affidavit or other competent proof of Mahadev’s failure to defend. Accordingly, Sanders’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to email this Order to quepatel@icloud.com

and mail it to the following addresses: SQA Mahadev, LLC dba Oyo Townhouse registered agent, Mr. Qunishbhai Patel 6101 Shelby Oaks Drive Memphis, TN 38134

SQA Mahadev, LLC c/o Faisal Jiwani 6819 Crumpler Boulevard, Suite 100 Olive Branch, Mississippi 38654

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 24th day of April, 2024. s/ Sheryl H. Lipman SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sanders v. SQA Mahadev, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-sqa-mahadev-llc-tnwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack