Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Calpernia; frithguild
Frith ole buddy,

Please chime in here with one of your usually cogent comments to help explain this and its implications.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

67 posted on 10/21/2008 6:30:00 AM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: LonePalm; frithguild

Yes! bump!


80 posted on 10/21/2008 6:35:57 AM PDT by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: LonePalm; Calpernia

F.R.Civ.P. 55 governs the entry of default and default judgment against a party who fails to plead or assert a defense by way of a motion to dismiss:

(a) Entry. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party’s default.

(b) Judgment.. Judgment by default may be entered as follows:
(1) By the Clerk. When the plaintiff’s claim against a defendant is for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain, the clerk upon request of the plaintiff and upon affidavit of the amount due shall enter judgment for that amount and costs against the defendant, if the defendant has been defaulted for failure to appear and is not an infant or incompetent person.
(2) By the Court. In all other cases the party entitled to a judgment by default shall apply to the court therefor; but no judgment by default shall be entered against an infant or incompetent person unless represented in the action by a general guardian, committee, conservator, or other such representative who has appeared therein. If the party against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, the party (or, if appearing by representative, the party’s representative) shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least 3 days prior to the hearing on such application. If, in order to enable the court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of any other matter, the court may conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper and shall accord a right of trial by jury to the parties when and as required by any statute of the United States.

Id.

Although F.R.Civ.P. 55(a) speaks in mandatory terms, the Clerk has some discretion in declining to enter default, where the request does not provide complete information. Dow v. Jones, 232 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (D.Md. 2002). In that case, a criminally convicted defendant sued his defense attorney for malpractice. The plaintiff served process upon the defendant on June 19, 2002, making a responsive pleading due on July 9, 2002. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on July 12, 2002. After the Clerk advised that an affidavit in support of a request to enter default filed July 15, 2002 did not recite that the defendant had filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to enter default.

In denying the motion seeking to enter default, the court discussed that it has discretion to grant additional time to a party to plead or otherwise defend.” Id. 232 F.Supp.2d at 494, citing 10A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice And Procedure § 2682 (3d ed.1995). The court additionally focused on, “[T]he judicial preference for a decision on the merits.” Id. citing First Am. Bank, N.A. v. United Equity Corp., 89 F.R.D. 81, 86-87 (D.D.C. 1981). Likewise, the court considered the absence of prejudice to the plaintiff, given that the defendant’s motion to dismiss had been filed only three days late. Id. citing Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., v. Metal Trades Council of Amarillo, Texas and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, 726 F.2d 166, 168 (5th Cir.1984); Martin v. Delaware Law Sch. of Widener Univ., 625 F.Supp. 1288, 1296 n. 3 (D.Del.1985), aff’d, 884 F.2d 1384 (3d Cir.1989).


82 posted on 10/21/2008 6:36:45 AM PDT by frithguild (Can I drill your head now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson