Cruz v. Creditmax Experts, LLC

Filing 12

ORDER granting 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Clerk's Default. Signed by Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd on 9/25/2024. (TJR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
CRYSTAL CRUZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:24-cv-1008-RBD-EJK

CREDITMAX EXPERTS, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Clerk’s
Default (the “Motion”) (Doc. 11), filed July 31, 2024. Upon consideration, the Motion
is due to be granted.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant Creditmax Experts, LLC, on May

31, 2024, for alleged violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”), 15
U.S.C § 1679, et seq. (Doc. 1.) The Proof of Service affidavit reflects that Defendant
was served on June 26, 2024, through service on an employee of its registered agent.
(Doc. 10.) Plaintiff now seeks entry of a clerk’s default against Defendant for its failure
to appear in this case. (Doc. 11.) The Motion is now ripe for review.
II.

STANDARD
“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has

failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise,

the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Before the clerk may
enter default, he or she must determine that effective service has been made on the
defaulting defendant because, without effective service, there is no jurisdiction and no
obligation to answer or “otherwise defend.” See Kelly v. Florida, 233 Fed. App’x 883,
885 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished).
III.

DISCUSSION

Defendant is an LLC operating in Florida. (Doc. 1 ¶ 5.) Under the federal rules,
a corporate defendant may be served by:
delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to
an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent
authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of
process and—if the agent is one authorized by statute and
the statute so requires—by also mailing a copy of each to
the defendant[.]
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B).
The Proof of Service affidavit reflects that Defendant was served on June 26,
2024, through service on an employee of its registered agent, Rafael B. Matos. (Doc.
10.) Florida’s Division of Corporation’s website confirms that Rafael B. Matos is
Defendant’s registered agent.1 Therefore, service was effective under Rule 4(h)(1)(B).2

1

Detail by Entity Name of CreditMax Experts, LLC, Division of Corporations, an official
State of Florida website,
https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquiryty
pe=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=CREDITMAXEXPER
TS%20L190001941080&aggregateId=flal-l19000194108-fbf1f23d-e31b-4128-8df90f66ba177465&searchTerm=Creditmax%20&listNameOrder=CREDITMAX%20L0
40000090470 (last visited Sept. 23, 2024).
2
Florida Statute § 48.091(4) states that if the natural person registered agent is
temporarily absent, service of process on the registered agent’s employee is acceptable.

-2-

Since Defendant was served on June 26, 2024, and more than 21 days have passed
with no responsive pleading filed, default is appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i).
IV.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 11) is GRANTED.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a default against Defendant.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on September 25, 2024.

-3-