Sequoia Financial Solutions, Inc. v. Godfrey, Jr. et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/12/2013. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SEQUOIA FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID GODFREY, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

13 C 2983

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On July 18, 2013 plaintiff Sequoia Financial Solutions, Inc.
(“Sequoia”) filed its motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
(“Rule”) 55, for the entry of default by the Clerk of this
District Court against defendants David Godfrey, Jr. and the
Illinois Department of Revenue.

Rule 55 does not of course

authorize the Clerk to enter a judgment against those defendants
in a mortgage foreclosure case such as this one--instead Rule
55(b)(2) requires application to this Court for a default
judgment.
Because Sequoia’s counsel had taken no action in the latter
respect before the next scheduled hearing date of August 16,
despite this Court’s issuance of a June 28, 2013 order calling
for such a motion seeking a default judgment, on August 18 this
Court took the issue of default under advisement with the
understanding that Sequoia’s counsel would promptly supply the
customary orders in that respect:

an order of default, an order

appointing a special commissioner and a judgment of foreclosure.

Indeed, on August 19 this Court’s secretary placed a call to
Sequoia’s lead counsel and was told that he would provide the
required documents within 48 hours.
Three weeks have elapsed since then, with none of the
promised documents having been provided--indeed, the only
“message” from Sequoia’s counsel has been that of total silence.1
It is not this Court’s responsibility to monitor what lawyers in
cases assigned to its calendar should be doing or have promised
to do.

Accordingly Sequoia’s motion for default (Dkt. 13) is

denied, and absent appropriate action on Sequoia’s part on or
before September 23, 2013 this action will be dismissed for want
of prosecution.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

September 12, 2013

1

This is not counsel’s first delinquency in this action.
On April 29, 2013 this Court was compelled to issue a memorandum
order that fined Sequoia $100 because of counsel’s violation of
this District Court’s LR 5.2(f) requirement of “the delivery of a
paper copy of the complaint for the assigned judge’s use within
one business day after filing.”
2