PNC Equipment Finance, LLC v. IKZ, Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying without prejudice 17 Plaintiff's Motion for Clerk's Default. Plaintiff may refile its Motion in compliance with this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 3/10/2014. (BLW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:13-cv-763-FtM-29CM

IKZ, INC. and IVAN J.
KOVACEVIC,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion for Clerk’s
Default (Doc. 17) filed on January 22, 2014. Plaintiff moves for the entry of clerk’s
default against Defendant IKZ, Inc. and Ivan J. Kovacevic for failure to respond to
the Complaint. Plaintiff’s Motion simply request that a clerk’s default be entered
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), with no analysis or argument as
to why service was proper under the rules such that the Court should enter a clerk’s
default. Pursuant to Middle District of Florida Local Rule 3.01(a), “[i]n a motion or
other application for an order, the movant shall include a concise statement of the
precise relief requested, a statement of the basis for the request, and a memorandum
of legal authority in support of the request.” M.D. Fla. Rule 3.01(a). While the
record reveals that Plaintiff filed Returns of Service for both Defendants showing that
Defendants were served on November 12, 2013 (Docs. 8, 9), Plaintiff has cited no legal

authority to the Court as to why service was proper. 1

Thus, the Motion will be

denied at this time.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Motion for Clerk’s Default (Doc. 17) is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff may refile its Motion in compliance with the above.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 10th day of March, 2014.

Copies:
Counsel of record

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint has been amended twice, with the most recent
amendment filed on December 5, 2013, showing that it was mailed to Defendants. (Docs. 7,
14). This was a date after the original complaint was formally served by the process server
on November 12, 2013. (Docs. 8, 9). Plaintiff’s brief should include argument as to whether
service of an amended complaint by mail is proper.
1

-2-