Baines v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC

Filing 17

ORDER denying without prejudice 15 Motion of Default. Within sixty (60) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall cause proper service to be effected on Defendant in accordance with relevant state and federal law. Failure to file a re turn of service with the Court by this deadline (or failure to seek any other relief including additional time for service) will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price on 8/30/2024. (MKH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

ESTHER E. BAINES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:24-cv-799-JSS-LHP

FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES,
LLC,
Defendant

ORDER
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following
motion filed herein:
MOTION: MOTION OF DEFAULT (Doc. No. 15)
FILED:

August 19, 2024

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without
prejudice.
On April 29, 2024, Plaintiff Esther E. Baines, proceeding pro se, filed a
complaint against Defendant Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC alleging claims under
the Fair Credit Report Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. Doc. No. 1. On June
5, 2024, a return of service was filed stating that the United States Marshals Service

(“USMS”) effected service on Defendant on May 29, 2024 by serving “Chelsea
Wang, Cust. Service Rep.” at “Corporation Service Company, 1201 Hays Street,
Tallahassee, Florida 32301.” Doc. No. 12.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion of Default,” which the Court
construes as a motion for Clerk’s default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Doc. No. 15. 1

55(a).

prejudice.

Upon review, the motion is due to be denied without

To begin, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a), which

requires a memorandum of legal authority in support. 2

In addition, although

service was effected on Defendant via “Corporation Service Company 1201 Hays
Street Tallahassee FL 32301” on May 29, 2024, publicly available records show that
Defendant filed a “Certificate of Withdrawal of Authority to Transact Business in
Florida” on May 21, 2024. 3 This Certificate of Withdrawal became effective on the

Plaintiff did not timely move for Clerk’s default, and the Court issued an Order
to Show Cause regarding same. Doc. No. 13. But after the filing of Plaintiff’s response
to the Order to Show Cause and the Motion of Default, the Court discharged the Order to
Show Cause. Doc. No. 16. Accordingly, the undersigned proceeds with addressing
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 15).
1

Plaintiff is advised that her pro se status does not excuse her from litigating this
case in accordance with all applicable laws, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules,
and Court Orders. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S.
863 (1989) (a pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”).
2

Records for Defendant with Florida’s Department of State, Division of
Corporations,
are
available
at
https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ByName by entering “Frontline
3

-2-

date it was filed and accepted by the Florida Secretary of State (May 21, 2024), 4 and
the Certificate of Withdrawal operates to transform Defendant into a non-registered
foreign business entity, such that service on Defendant’s registered agent does not
appear to qualify as proper service of process. See Fla. Stat. § 605.0910(2) (“After
the withdrawal of the foreign limited liability company is effective, service of
process on the Secretary of State using the procedures set forth in s. 48.161 is service
on the foreign limited liability company.”); see also id. §§ 48.161, 48.181(2).
Because service was not effected on the Florida Secretary of State, service
does not have appear to have been properly made. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion
for Clerk’s default (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED without prejudice. Within sixty (60)
days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall cause proper service to be effected
on Defendant in accordance with relevant state and federal law. Failure to file a
return of service with the Court by this deadline (or failure to seek any other relief
including additional time for service) will result in a recommendation that this case
be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Local Rule 3.10.

Asset Strategies, LLC” in the “Entity Name” field.
See Fla. Stat. § 605.0207 (“[A] record filed by the department is effective: (1) If the
record filed does not specify an effective time and does not specify a prior or a delayed
effective date, on the date and at the time the record is accepted as evidenced by the
department's endorsement of the date and time on the filing.”).
4

-3-

The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail new summons and Marshal 285 forms to
Plaintiff along with a copy of this Order. The procedures set forth in the Court’s
May 16, 2024 Order shall otherwise govern service in this case. See Doc. No. 7.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 30, 2024.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-4-