Pedro-Mejia v. Franco Plastering Inc.
2:17-cv-00452
M.D. Fla.Oct 11, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Basilio Pedro-Mejia and Antonio Pedro-Mejia sued Franco Plastering, Inc. and Martin Franco.
- Defendants failed to timely file a response to the Complaint; Plaintiffs moved for Clerk’s default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
- Martin Franco (individually and as company president/agent) served an answer on September 27, 2017, but the corporation had not yet retained counsel.
- Local Rule requires corporations to be represented by counsel; a corporation cannot appear pro se.
- Defendants retained counsel and filed an unopposed motion for an extension to respond; Plaintiffs consented to the extension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clerk’s default should be entered under Rule 55(a) | Default appropriate because Defendants missed the response deadline | Entry of default is premature because Defendants served an answer and retained counsel and seek an extension | Denied as moot — default not entered; court favors adjudication on merits |
| Whether corporate defendant may proceed pro se | Implicit: default still appropriate despite procedural defects | Corporate appearance by Franco (without counsel) was defective but showed a defense and counsel was retained | Court found the pro se corporate filing deficient but sufficient to show a meritorious defense; allowed extension |
| Whether extension of time should be granted | Implicit: oppose delay only if prejudiced | Extension unopposed by Plaintiff; good cause shown | Extension granted through Oct. 13, 2017 |
| Whether minimal delay prejudices Plaintiff | Plaintiff did not claim prejudice | Defendants sought minimal additional time to respond | Court found no prejudice and approved the delay |
Key Cases Cited
None with official reporter citations were relied upon in the opinion; the decision primarily cited Federal Rules and unpublished/motion-panel decisions.