PCH Mutual Insurance Company v. Shady Lane Care, Inc. et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting PCH's requested deadlines in the 21 Notice (Other) filed by PCH Mutual Insurance Company. Deadline to conduct Rule 26(f) Conference-September 25, 2015. Deadline to file Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan-October 9, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 9/9/15. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
PCH MUTUAL INSURANCE Co.,
Plaintiff,
V.

SHADY LANE PERSONAL CARE
HOME, INC.; ROSETTA MORRIS;
HERMAN MORRIS; SHADY LANE
PCH; and CHRISTOPHER GALL,
Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Jeremy
Edward Gall,

Case No. CV415-088

Defendants.

ORDER
After months of unexplained inactivity in this matter, the Court
ordered plaintiff PCH Mutual Insurance Co. to show cause why this case
should not be administratively closed. Doc. 20 (filed August 28, 2015).
In that order, the Court speculated that the bankruptcy of defendants
Rosetta and Herman Morris, filed shortly after PCH filed its complaint,
might explain the lack of progress here. Id. at 1. Turns out that's only
part of the story.

On July 2, 2015, the bankruptcy court granted PCH relief from the
automatic stay of this action created by the Morrises' bankruptcy.

See In

re Morris, No. 15-40437, doc. 67 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2015). According to
PCH, the Morrises' deadline to answer PCH's complaint thus became
August 3, 2015. Doc. 21 at 5. They still have not answered. In fact, only
defendant Christopher Gall has. See doc. 13 (filed April 17, 2015). The
Morrises and the Shady Lane entities therefore are all in default.'
In its response to the Court's show cause order, PCH acknowledges
those defaults, but that's it. It never mentions moving for entry of
default or otherwise addresses the defendants' failure to respond. 2
1

The Shady Lane entities never went bankrupt and thus were not subject to the
automatic stay. They therefore had until April 27, 2015 (PCH originally filed its
complaint on March 13, 2015 in the Northern District of Georgia, but later moved to
transfer venue to this Court. That transfer occurred on March 26, 2015. Doc. 5.) to
answer, but never have.
2

Courts can, of course:
grant a default judgment when a properly served defendant fails to respond to
a complaint for declaratory relief. See Nautilus Ins. Co. v. BSA Ltd. Pship, 602
F.Supp.2d 641, 645-46 (D. Md. 2009) (awarding default judgment in
declaratory judgment action); Am. Select Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 445 F. Supp. 2d
681, 684 (N.D. W. Va. 2006) (same); see also Penn Am. Ins. Co. v. Valade, 28
Fed. App'x 253 (4th Cir. 2002) (unpublished per curiam op.) (affirming
summary judgment in favor of insurer, against third party, following entry of
default judgment against insured in declaratory judgment action).

Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Bounds, 2012 WL 1576105 at * 3 (D. Md. May 2, 2012); see also
Taylor v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., 2009 WL 249353 at * 12 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 30, 2009)
("Wachovia remains entitled to a default judgment since plaintiff did not reply to the
2

Instead, after revealing that it served requests for admission on
September 1, 2015 on the defendants in default, PCH asks the Court to
set two deadlines: (1) September 25, 2015 for Gall and PCH to conduct a
Rule 26(f) conference; and (2) October 9, 2015 for those parties to file a
Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan. Doc. 21 at 6.
Under Local Rule 26.1(a), the parties must "confer as provided in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) by the earlier of (i) 21 days after the filing of the last
answer of the defendants named in the original complaint or (ii) 45 days
after the first appearance by answer or motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12
of a defendant named in the original complaint." Forty-five days after
Gall answered was June 1, 2015, which means PCH wants more than a
three month extension. To boot, it requested the extension three months
after the deadline expired and even then only because the Court
prompted it to. Such delay is inconsistent with the general purpose of
the federal rules, which exist "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
Nevertheless, no sanction is appropriate since it now appears that
PCH and Gall are prepared to expeditiously litigate this matter. The
counterclaim for declaratory relief. See Owners Ins. Co. v. James, 295 F. Supp. 2d
1354, 1360 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (granting default judgment on declaratory judgment
claim).").
3

Court therefore GRANTS PCH's requested deadlines, but there will be
no further extensions absent a showing of good cause, which would
require a far better showing than what PCH has offered here.
SO ORDERED, this

day of September, 2015.

S MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA