Trustees of the Pipe Industry Health and Welfare Fund of Colorado et al v. Expert Mechanical Services, Inc. et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 22 Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Expert Mechanical Services, Inc. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 6/20/2014.(klyon, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00911-REB
TRUSTEES OF THE PIPE INDUSTRY HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND OF COLORADO, an
TRUSTEES OF THE COLORADO PIPE INDUSTRY ANNUITY AND SALARY DEFERRAL
TRUST FUND, an express trust,
TRUSTEES OF THE DENVER PLUMBERS JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING FUND,
an express trust,
TRUSTEES OF THE PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND, an
JOURNEYMEN PLUMBERS AND GAS FITTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3, UNITED
ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING & PIPE
FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, an unincorporated
MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN COLORADO, THE, a
EXPERT MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC., a Colorado corporation, and
EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, an Iowa corporation
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANT EXPERT MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC.
The matter before me is plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant
Expert Mechanical Services, Inc. [#22],1 filed December 20, 2013. I deny the motion without
Defendant Expert Mechanical Services, Inc., was served a copy of the summons and
“[#22]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
complaint on April 15, 2013. Defendant failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint
within the time permitted by law, and thus has admitted the factual allegations of the complaint
other than those relating to damages. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d); see also Burlington
Northern Railroad Co. v. Huddleston, 94 F.3d 1413, 1415 (10th Cir. 1996). Entry of default
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) was made by the clerk of the court on May 9, 2014 [#11].
Plaintiffs now seek a default judgment against defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(b)(2). However, their motion fails to apprise the court as to how they believe the facts set
forth in the complaint – and now admitted by defendant’s failure to answer or otherwise appear
in this action – prove up either of the claims for relief pleaded. I decline plaintiffs’ implicit
invitation to divine the legal basis for a judgment in their favor from the bare fact of defendant’s
failure to timely answer. The motion therefore must be denied without prejudice.2 If the motion
is refiled, nothing more is required than a recitation of the essential elements of the claim under
consideration and the averments from the complaint that prove up those elements.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment Against
Defendant Expert Mechanical Services, Inc. [#22], filed December 20, 2013, is DENIED
Dated June 20, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Plaintiffs are further advised that any request for attorney fees and costs must likewise be
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?