Crow v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT re 17 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 9/14/2015. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Colin L. Crow served by first class mail at the address of record on September 14, 2015. A copy of Real Time's Answer, docket entry 12 shall be included in the mailing to Mr. Crow.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
COLIN L. CROW,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. NO. 15-00161 SOM-BMK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Before the Court is Plaintiff Colin L. Crow’s Motion for Default
Judgment. ECF No. 17. After careful consideration of the Motion and record, the
court denies the motion without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule LR 7.2(d).
On May 4, 2015, Crow filed the Complaint in this matter against
Defendants OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC, and Real Time Resolutions, Inc.,
seeking to quiet title to his property, and alleging violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605, and violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. On July 23, 2015, OCWEN Loan
Servicing, LLC, was dismissed from this case. See ECF No. 16. Accordingly, the
court examines the Motion for Default Judgment only as it pertains to Defendant
Real Time Resolutions, Inc.

The Complaint and Summons appear to have been served on Real Time
on May 15, 2015. See ECF No. 7. Pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Real Time was required to file an Answer or other
responsive pleading “within 21 days after being served with the summons and
complaint[.]” Accordingly, Real Time’s Answer was due on June 5, 2015. Real
Time timely filed an Answer on June 4, 2015. See ECF No. 12. Real Time’s
Certificate of Service indicates that the Answer was served on Crow by
hand-delivery or postage prepaid mail. See id., PageID # 127.
Entry of default is proper “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment or
affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(a). After obtaining default, the plaintiff may seek default judgment pursuant to
Rule 55(b). Here, Crow requests default judgment against Real Time “on the
grounds that Defendant has failed to answer, appear or otherwise defend, and the
time to otherwise move or plead has expired and has not been extended in this
action.” ECF No. 17, PageID # 137. Crow argues that Real Time did not serve
him with the Answer. Id., PageID # 138.
Because Real Time timely filed its Answer on June 4, 2015, default has
not been entered against it. Without such an entry of default, default judgment is
inappropriate. Hofelich v. Hawaii, Civ. No. 11-00034 DAE-BMK, 2011 WL

2

1438096, at *1 (D. Haw. April 14, 2011) (“In light of the requirement to obtain entry
of default before seeking default judgment, courts deny motions for default
judgment where default has not been previously entered.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).
Accordingly, Crow’s Motion for Default Judgment is denied. Just in case Crow did
not receive a copy of Real Time’s Answer, the Clerk of Court is directed to mail
Crow a copy of that Answer to alleviate any possible prejudice. Future proceedings
in this court will address the merits of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 14, 2015.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Crow v. OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC, et al., CIV. NO. 15-00161 SOM-BMK; Order Denying
Plaintiff’ Motion for Default Judgment.

3