Schatz v. Centr Brands Corp.
Filing
76
ORDER denying without prejudice 75 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Default Judgment. On or before November 11, 2024, Plaintiff may file another motion for default judgment in accordance with this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick on 10/28/2024. (TNP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ALEXANDRA SCHATZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:23-cv-421-RBD-DCI
CENTR BRANDS CORP.,
Defendant.
ORDER
By Order dated August 22, 2024, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s First
Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant because it was insufficient. Doc. 71. The Court
directed Plaintiff to file a second motion in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Local Rules of this Court. Id. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Motion for
Default Judgment. Doc. 75 (the Motion). The Motion is still deficient.
Before entering default judgment, the Court must ensure that it has jurisdiction over the
claims and parties, and that the well-pled factual allegations of the complaint, which are assumed
to be true, adequately state a claim for which relief may be granted. See Nishimatsu Constr. Co.
v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975).1 It is Plaintiff’s burden to address
the elements of the causes of action and the specific, well-pled facts in the operative complaint
that satisfy each of those elements.
1
The Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
Here, Plaintiff argues entitlement to damages and attorney fees and costs but provides no
discussion regarding the substance of her claims. Plaintiff brings three counts for relief against
Defendant for discrimination based on sex under Title VII (Count One) and the FCRA (Count
Two), and violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (Count Three) but cites to no authority
and gives no analysis in the Motion to address the elements of any of her claims under the
applicable law.
As such, Plaintiff has not set forth the elements for her discrimination claims nor has
Plaintiff demonstrated how the well-pled allegations of the Complaint establish each element. It
is not the Court’s role to determine which of the allegations in the Complaint satisfy the elements
of the claims. See United States ex. rel. Phoenix Metals Co. v. Worthfab, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 118796, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 7, 2020) (denying without prejudice a motion for default
judgment because the plaintiff did not discuss the elements for each claim, provide citations to
authority as to these elements, and support each element by pinpoint citation to the factual
allegations in the complaint); Gonopolsky v. Korchak, 2007 WL 1549429, at *2 (May 25, 2007)
(finding that a motion for default judgment was insufficient because there was no discussion of
the elements of each cause of action and how the allegations of the complaint, taken as true, satisfy
the elements).
Should Plaintiff decide to renew the request for default judgment, Plaintiff shall comply
fully with Local Rule 3.01(a) and, in particular, address the elements of the causes of action for
which default judgment is sought and the specific, well-pled facts in the operative pleading that
satisfy each of those elements.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 75) is DENIED without prejudice; and
-2-
2. on or before November 11, 2024, Plaintiff may file another motion for default
judgment in accordance with this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the
Local Rules of this Court.
Failure to file the motion for default judgment within the allotted time may result in
dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute without further notice.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 28, 2024.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
-3-
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?