CHALLMAN v. HOVG, LLC
Filing
13
ORDER - For the reasons contained herein, the Court DENIES Mr. Challman's Verified Application for Entry of Default from Clerk, [dkt. 7 ]. The Court notes that HOVG's request for an extension of time, which is technically a motion, wa s contained in its response to Mr. Challman's Application. [Dkt. 10 at 2.] This practice violates Local Rule 7-1(a), which provides that "[m]otions must be filed separately, but alternative motions may be filed in a single paper if each is named in the title. A motion must not be contained within a brief, response, or reply to a previously filed motion, unless ordered by the court." The Court excuses HOVG's misstep, GRANTS the request for an extension to June 19, 2013, and DIRECTS the Clerk to docket HOVG's Answer to Complaint Seeking Damages for Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (currently docketed as an exhibit to its response to the Application [dkt. 12]) as HOVG's Answer. However, the Court expects counsel to comply with the Local Rules going forward Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/21/2013. (JKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MICHAEL CHALLMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HOVG, LLC, doing business as BAY AREA
CREDIT SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:13-cv-00699-JMS-TAB
ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Challman’s Verified Application
for Entry of Default from Clerk, [dkt. 7]. In the Application, Mr. Challman states that his counsel provided Defendant HOVG, LLC (“HOVG”) with an “informal extension of time” of twentyone days from the date HOVG’s Answer in this matter was originally due. [Id. at 1, ¶ 3.] Mr.
Challman asserts that the extension made HOVG’s Answer due on June 13, 2013, but HOVG did
not file its Answer by that date. [Id. at 1, ¶¶ 3-4.]
HOVG’s counsel entered appearances on June 14, 2013, [dkts. 8; 9], and responded to the
Application on the same date, [dkt. 10]. In response, HOVG explains that it just retained counsel
on June 14, 2013, and requested additional time – until June 19, 2013 – to file its Answer. [Id. at
1-2.]
Local Rule 6-1 provides for an automatic twenty-eight day extension for filing a response
to a pleading, upon the filing of notice. Here, the parties’ agreement was for a twenty-one day
extension. HOVG’s counsel appeared and sought more time to file HOVG’s Answer within the
twenty-eight days contemplated by Local Rule 6-1, and the requested extension made HOVG’s
responsive pleading still due within that initial twenty-eight day period. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals favors a policy of “trial on the merits over default judgment.”
-1-
Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 631 (7th Cir. 2009). For those reasons, the Court
DENIES Mr. Challman’s Verified Application for Entry of Default from Clerk, [dkt. 7].
The Court notes that HOVG’s request for an extension of time, which is technically a
motion, was contained in its response to Mr. Challman’s Application. [Dkt. 10 at 2.] This practice violates Local Rule 7-1(a), which provides that “[m]otions must be filed separately, but alternative motions may be filed in a single paper if each is named in the title. A motion must not
be contained within a brief, response, or reply to a previously filed motion, unless ordered by the
court.” The Court excuses HOVG’s misstep, GRANTS the request for an extension to June 19,
2013, and DIRECTS the Clerk to docket HOVG’s Answer to Complaint Seeking Damages for
Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (currently docketed as an exhibit to its response to the Application [dkt. 12]) as HOVG’s Answer. However, the Court expects counsel to
comply with the Local Rules going forward.
06/21/2013
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution via ECF only:
David M. Schultz
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
dschultz@hinshawlaw.com
John Thomas Steinkamp
JOHN T. STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES
steinkamplaw@yahoo.com
Jennifer Wigington Weller
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
jweller@hinshawlaw.com
-2-
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?