Pearce v. DRLLOYDER Enterprises "LLC" et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying without prejudice #10 Motion for Entry of Clerk's Defaut Judgment. It is ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a motion for Clerk's default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). Signed by Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price on 9/24/2024. (MKH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

ROBERT PEARCE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:24-cv-1417-WWB-LHP

DRLLOYDER ENTERPRISES ''LLC''
and DAVID LLOYD,
Defendants

ORDER
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following
motion filed herein:
MOTION: MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CLERK’S DEFAUT
JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 10)
FILED:

September 24, 2024

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without
prejudice.
Plaintiff instituted this action against Defendants on August 1, 2024. Doc.
No. 1.

Plaintiff has filed returns of service stating that both Defendants were

served with a copy of the summons and complaint on August 22, 2024. Doc. Nos.

8–9. To date, Defendants have not appeared in this matter. And by the abovestyled motion, Plaintiff seeks to have default judgment entered by the Clerk of
Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1). Doc. No. 10. Upon review,
however, and for the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is due to be
denied.
First, the Court notes that the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a)
because it does not include a memorandum of legal authority in support.
Second, Plaintiff prematurely seeks default judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 55(b), as Plaintiff has not applied for, nor has the Clerk entered,
default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). See, e.g., Awgi, LLC v. Team
Smart Move, LLC, No. 6:12-cv-948-Orl-22DAB, 2012 WL 12904224, at *1 (M.D. Fla.
Sept. 28, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 12904225 (M.D. Fla. Oct.
4, 2012) (“[T]he clerk’s entry of default must precede an application for default
judgment.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); see also Barney v. Biegalski, No.
3:18CV620-MCR-CJK, 2018 WL 9517270, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2018), report and
recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 9517272 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2018) (“[E]ntry of
default under Rule 55(a) must precede grant of a default judgment under Rule
55(b).” (citation omitted)). Nor will the Court construe the instant motion as a
request for Clerk’s default under Rule 55(a), as the motion does not address service
of process. See generally United States v. Donald, No. 3:09-cv-147-J-32HTS, 2009 WL
-2-

1810357, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2009) (before a Clerk’s default can be entered
against a defendant, the Court must determine that the defendant was properly
served).
Third, even if the request for default judgment were ripe for review, Plaintiff
proceeds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1). Doc. No. 10. However,
“[a]lthough Rule 55 (b)(1) provides for entry of default judgment by the clerk, courts
in this District have nonetheless found it proper to review such motions and then,
only if appropriate, direct the entry of judgment.” Estes Express Lines v. Coverlex,
Inc., No. 8:19-cv-467-T-36AEP, 2019 WL 13183880, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2019)
(citing Color Events, BV v. Multi Talent Agency, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-648-Orl-37DCI, 2018
WL 4762973, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2018)).

And before entering default

judgment, the Court must ensure that it has jurisdiction over the claims and parties,
and that the well pleaded 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 “Therefore, a
court must conduct an analysis to determine whether the well-pleaded factual

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. See Bonner
v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
1

-3-

allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint provide a sufficient basis for a judgment
against the defendant.” Estes Express Lines, 2019 WL 13183880, at *1.
Here, the present motion is insufficient to demonstrate that default judgment
is proper. The motion does not set forth the elements of Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants or demonstrate how the well pleaded allegations of the complaint
establish each of those elements. Nor does Plaintiff explain how the allegations of
his complaint establish either individual or enterprise FLSA coverage. Without
this information, the Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to a
default judgment. See, e.g., Estes Express Lines, 2019 WL 13183880, at *2 (denying
two-page motion for default which “merely points out that the Clerk entered
default, cites Rule 55(b)(1), and refers to the attached affidavit” and which otherwise
did not include a legal memorandum as required by Local Rule 3.01(a)); McCraken
v. Bubba’s World, LLC, No. 6:09-cv-1954-Orl-28DAB, 2010 WL 3463280, at *2 (M.D.
Fla. Aug. 4, 2010) (recommending denial of motion for default judgment where,
among other things, “Plaintiff cites no cases, undertakes no analysis, and fails to
even mention the [FLSA] except in a passing reference . . .”), report and
recommendation adopted, 2010 WL 3463277 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2010).

-4-

For these reasons, the above-styled motion (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED without
prejudice. It is ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Plaintiff
shall file a motion for Clerk’s default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on September 24, 2024.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-5-