Luxottica Retail North America Inc. v. George L. Haffner Enterprises, Inc. et al
Filing
19
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 --motion for default/motion to strike; denying as moot 18 --motion to strike; granting default; directing the Clerk to ENTER DEFAULT under Rule 55(a) against George L. Haffner and Gail Mabry. Upon motion for default judgment, a hearing on damages will be scheduled. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 12/16/2011. (BK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH
AMERICA, INC., d/b/a PEARLE VISION,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO.: 8:11-cv-2433-T-23TBM
GEORGE L. HAFFNER ENTERPRISES,
INC., GEORGE L. HAFFNER and GAIL
MABRY,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER
The plaintiff, Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., operate a “distinctive
optical retail system” known as “Pearle Vision.” The plaintiff sues (Doc. 1) for
breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. Seeking money
damages and injunctive relief, the complaint alleges unauthorized operation of two
Pearle Vision stores and unauthorized use of Pearle Vision’s trademarks.
On October 26, 2011, the plaintiff moved (Doc. 2) for a preliminary injunction.
The defendants George L. Haffner Enterprises, Inc., and George L. Haffner each
received service on October 31, 2011. (Docs. 5, 7) The defendant Gail Mabry
received service on November 1, 2011. (Doc. 6) On November 18, 2011, Haffner and
Mabry each filed (Docs. 8, 9) a notice of pro se appearance or, in the defendants’
words, a “notice of limited appearance.” The unusual notices include an assortment
of more or less familiar phrases arranged in a bizarre manner, for example:
Now coming is the man george-leslie, formerly of the Haffner family, by Limited
Appearance and not by general appearance, reserving all rights, by necessity, for
the protection of freedom, rights, titles, and interests in this civil action. The sole
purpose of this limited appearance is to honor this court and at all pertinent times
by acting under Variation of Agreement, in good-fath, with clean hands, with no
intention of contempt, delay, or obstruction of the due process of the law, but for
the purpose of maintaining the domestic, private, and public international order.
Moreover, limited appearance is made in an effort to facilitate the peaceful and
immediate-settlement of any and all stated disputes or claims, charges) [sic] and
to further facilitate the immediate satisfaction, closure, and discharge of
GEORGE L. HAFFNER pertaining to this account . . . and any other related
account(s).
(Doc. 8) (emphasis in original) On November 18, 2011, Haffner and Mabry filed
(Docs. 10, 11) documents entitled “Response to Civil Complaint; and Motion for
Injunctive Relief.” Unsurprisingly, the documents include similar assertions:
1. For the reasons outlined below, George L. Haffner cannot and does not enter
a plea in this matter at this time.
2. George L. Haffner does not have legal standing in this court.
...
8. There is no controversy to be adjudicated by this court.
...
12. George L. Haffner cannot comprehend the intent of this civil action with out
[sic] the aid of a qualified attorney.
...
15. Due to George L. Haffner’s lack of understanding and lack of knowledge,
George L. Haffner does not consent or agree at this time to grant general
jurisdiction to this court or the adjudication of any facts stated in the papers
without proper representation and advice of a qualified attorney.
-2-
The documents purport to offer a (confusing) settlement, confess “common law”
judgment, and appoint the plaintiff’s counsel as the defendants’ own “collateral
endorser and surety.”
On November 28, 2011, the defendants filed (Docs. 12, 13) two boxes of
documents, which include a copy of the summons, complaint, and each exhibit filed
by the plaintiff. Revealing an impressive tolerance for tedium, Haffner and Mabry
(and not “george-leslie” and “marjorie-gail”) stamped and signed each page. The
stamp states:
ACCEPTED FOR VALUE
NON-NEGOTIABLE
ACCEPTED FOR VALUE AND RETURNED
George Leslie Haffner Accepts for Value this presentment “CLAIM” and
ALL related Endorsements front and back, in accordance with Uniform
Commercial Code 3-419 and House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933.
Please adjust the account(s) for all bonds proceeds, products, accounts and
fixtures and the court is directed to immediately release the order(s) of this
court to this man, george-leslie (haffner). This Religious and Holy man,
george-leslie (haffner), the res, corpus-body, and property is EXEMPT
FROM BODILY ATTACHMENT, ARREST, LEVY or LIEN
PRIORITY—PREPAID.
(Docs. 12, 13, 17) (emphasis in original) On December 5, 2011, default was entered
(Doc. 15) against George L. Haffner Enterprises, Inc. On December 9, 2011, Haffner
and Mabry returned (Doc. 17) to the court the notice of designation, the order
directing the clerk to enter default against the corporation, and the clerk’s default.
-3-
Again, Haffner and Mabry stamped and signed each page.1 Citing Rules 8 and 12,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff moves (Doc. 18) to strike the pro se
defendants’ responses and for a default.
Rule 55(a) permits a default “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for
affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” (Emphasis added)
Rule 8 outlines the general rules of pleading. Rule 8(b)(1) requires a responding
defendant to “state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted
against it” and “admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing
party.” Rule 8(b)(2) requires that a denial must “fairly respond to the substance of the
allegation.”
Although lacking an explicit definition in Rule 55, “otherwise defend” includes
defenses such as a motion attacking service, a motion to dismiss, and a motion for
summary judgment. Cowen v. Aurora Loan Servs., No. Civ. 10-452, 2010 WL 3342196,
at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 25, 2010); Johnson v. Warner, No. 7:05-cv-219, 2009 WL 586730,
at *4 (Mar. 6, 2009); 10 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 55.11[2][b][i] (3d ed. 2010)
(“[T]he term . . . include[s] the assertion of those defenses that, under Rule 12(b),
may be made by motion rather than in the pleadings. These defenses include
challenges to subject matter or personal jurisdiction, venue, and sufficiency of
process or service of process; motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; and motions raising the issue of failure to join a party under
Except for the name and identifying pronoun of the defendant, each paper filed by Mabry is
the same as each paper filed by Haffner.
1
-4-
Rule 19.”). To avoid default, a defendant must “either take steps to file a timely
responsive ‘pleading’ or take some action that indicates an intention to ‘defend’ the
suit. Not every paper or other form of communication with the court will meet the
Rule 55(a) standard requiring a party to ‘plead or otherwise defend.’” 10 MOORE’S
FEDERAL PRACTICE § 55.11[2][b][ii] (3d ed. 2010); In re Thornton, 419 B.R. 787, 790
(Bkrtcy. W.D. Tenn. 2009) (noting that a party avoids default by demonstrating an
intent to defend the suit).
None of the documents filed by Haffner and Mabry reveals an intent to
“defend” the suit. Indeed, the documents reveal no intent whatsoever. Failing to
conform with the prescriptions of Rule 8 by either responding “to the substance of
the allegation” or stating a defense in “short and plain terms,” Haffner and Mabry
fail to “plead or otherwise defend.” See 10 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 55.02 (3d
ed. 2010) (“[D]efault promotes efficient administration of justice by requiring a
responding party to conform with the requirements set out in the Federal Rules in a
timely fashion.”). Haffner and Mabry have defaulted.
Conclusion
The plaintiffs motion (Doc. 18) for a default is GRANTED IN PART. The
motion to strike (Doc. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to enter
default under Rule 55(a) against George L. Haffner and Gail Mabry. Upon motion
for a default judgment from the plaintiff, a hearing on damages will be scheduled.
-5-
The defendants, whose antics are neither appreciated, efficient, nor effective,
move a giant step closer to imposition of a permanent injunction and money
damages. The defendants are strongly advised to stop the futile demonstrations,
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and immediately obtain counsel.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 16, 2011.
Steven D. Merryday
STEVEN D. MERRYDAY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
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?