SHARUM v. SUPERIOR BOILER WORKS, INC.
This text of SHARUM v. SUPERIOR BOILER WORKS, INC. (SHARUM v. SUPERIOR BOILER WORKS, INC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
STEPHEN SHARUM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:20-cv-00276-JPH-MJD ) SUPERIOR BOILER WORKS, INC., ) MG SALES, INC, ) HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., ) BSA LIFESTRUCTURES, INC., ) HSB GLOBAL STANDARDS, ) ) Defendants. )
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, Stephen Sharum, alleges that Defendants are liable for injuries he sustained when he fell at work. Dkt. 56. The clerk has entered default against Defendant MG Sales, Inc. "for failure to plead or otherwise defend this action." Dkt. 69. Mr. Sharum has moved for default judgment. Dkt. [58]. Because Mr. Sharum has not shown that default judgment is appropriate at this time, that motion is DENIED. Under Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may enter default judgment following a clerk's entry of default. See VLM Food Trading Int’l, Inc. v. Ill. Trading Co., 811 F.3d 247, 255 (7th Cir. 2016). To be entitled to default judgment, "the plaintiff still must establish his entitlement to the relief he seeks." Id. Indeed, "if an evidentiary hearing or other proceedings are necessary in order to determine what the judgment should provide, such as the amount of damages that the defaulting defendant must pay, those proceedings must be conducted before the judgment is entered." Lowe v. McGraw-Hill Cos., 361 F.3d 335, 339-40 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 95(b)(2)). Here, Mr. Sharum requests a default judgment for damages "in an amount to be determined." Dkt. 58 at 2. He has not identified an amount that "is liquidated or capable of ascertainment from definite figures," or requested an evidentiary hearing to prove damages. e360 Insight v. The Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594, 602 (7th Cir. 2007). He also has not addressed whether a partial final judgment is appropriate, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), or whether default judgment at this time could result in inconsistent judgments, see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 736 F.Supp. 958, 961 (S.D. Ind. 1990) (citing Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co. v. Pate, 819 F.2d 806 (7th Cir. 1987)). The motion for default judgment is therefore DENIED without prejudice. Dkt. [58]. SO ORDERED. Date: 1/22/2021
James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana
Distribution: Joseph Beutel EPSTEIN COHEN SEIF & PORTER joe@beutellaw.com
John W. Borkowski HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP john.borkowski@huschblackwell.com
Jennifer L. Dlugosz HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP jen.dlugosz@huschblackwell.com
Robert David Epstein EPSTEIN COHEN SEIF & PORTER rdepstein@aol.com
Jeffrey B. Fecht RILEY BENNETT EGLOFF LLP jfecht@rbelaw.com
Edward W. Gleason SENAK KEEGAN GLEASON & SMITH , LTD. egleason@skgsmlaw.com
Timothy P. Larkin HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP tim.larkin@huschblackwell.com
Tyler Scott Lemen DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP (Carmel) tlemen@dsvlaw.com
Joseph M. Leone DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP (Carmel) jleone@DSVlaw.com
James Alexander Tanford EPSTEIN COHEN SEIF & PORTER tanfordlegal@gmail.com
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
SHARUM v. SUPERIOR BOILER WORKS, INC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharum-v-superior-boiler-works-inc-insd-2021.