Elf-Man, LLC v. Does 1-4
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 64 Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant William Hall, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 4/8/2014. (cpear)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00686-WYD-MEH
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 8, 2014.
Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant William Hall
[filed April 7, 2014, docket #64] is denied without prejudice. As set forth in this Court’s October
29, 2013 order, Plaintiff’s original motion for default judgment against Defendant Hall was denied
as moot when Plaintiff filed its motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, but failed to
explain whether there was any difference in the allegations against Hall:
The Court notes that Plaintiff asserts in the motion to amend that the amendment will
not “prejudice” any responsive pleading or motion filed in this case. However,
neither in the motion to amend nor in Plaintiff’s pending (sparse) motion for default
judgment is there any information or explanation as to whether or how the Second
Amended Complaint may be different as to Defendant William Hall. Thus, without
sufficient information and in light of the order granting amendment, Plaintiff’s
Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant William Hall [filed October 21,
2013; docket #41], which relies on the content and service of the First Amended
Complaint, is denied without prejudice as moot. See Franklin v. Kansas Dep’t of
Corrs., 160 F. App’x 730, 734 (10th Cir. 2005) (“An amended complaint supersedes
the original complaint and renders the original complaint of no legal effect.”) (citing
Miller v. Glanz, 948 F. 2d 1562, 1565 (10th Cir. 1991)).
Minute Order, docket #45. On October 30, 2013, the Court accepted Plaintiff’s Corrected Second
Amended Complaint, the operative pleading in this case, and ordered that Plaintiff serve Defendants
with the pleading in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Minute Order, docket #49. The record
indicates that Plaintiff served then-Defendant Tincknell, but there is no indication Plaintiff served
Defendant Hall with the operative pleading. See Hukill v. Okla. Native Am. Domestic Violence
Coalition, 542 F.3d 794, 797 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[A] default judgment in a civil case is void if there
is no personal jurisdiction over the defendant ... [a]nd service of process [under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4]
provides the mechanism by which a court having venue and jurisdiction over the subject matter of
an action asserts jurisdiction over the person of the party served.”) (citations and quotations
omitted). Moreover, there is nothing on the docket demonstrating that the Clerk of the Court has
entered default against Hall for any failure to defend against the operative pleading.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?