Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 19-cv-63112-BLOOM/Valle RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG,
Plaintiff,
v.
ELIE TAHARI LTD.,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment, ECF No. [13]. Plaintiff filed the above-captioned action on December 18, 2019. ECF No. [1]. A summons was issued as to Defendant Elie Tahari Ltd. (“Defendant”) on December 18, 2019. ECF No. [3]. Service of the summons and Complaint was executed on Defendant on January 20, 2020, setting a response deadline of February 10, 2020. ECF No. [10]. After Defendant failed to respond, the Court issued an Order requiring Defendant to submit a response by February 18, 2020, and if Defendant failed to do so, Plaintiff was ordered to submit a Motion for Entry of Clerk’s Default by February 25, 2020. ECF No. [11]. [1] After Defendant again failed to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, requesting that this Court enter Final Default Judgment against Defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) states: *2 Case No. 19-cv-63112-BLOOM/Valle “ Entering a Default. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has failed to move for an entry of Clerk’s Default. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for Final Default Judgment must be denied.
Accordingly, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. [13] , is DENIED .
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on February 24, 2020. _________________________________ BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Elie Tahari Ltd.
Corporation Service Company
1201 Hays Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
2
[1] The Court’s Order, ECF No. [11], also ordered that Plaintiff serve a copy of the Order upon all defaulting Defendants and that the Motion for Entry of Clerk’s Default should include a certificate of service indicating that notice of the Order was sent to Defendant, including the address to which it was sent. Plaintiff’s Certificate of Service in his Motion, however, state that the Motion was filed through the CM/ECF system “and will be served via email when Defendant/Defendant’s counsel enters an appearance.” ECF No. [13] at 7. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Order, which is an independent ground for denying the Motion.