METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. SHAFER et al

Filing 13

ORDER - denying 10 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court ORDERS Ms. Shafer to file an Answer to the Complaint by March 11, 2014 so that the parties' positions are clearly set forth going forward. (See Order.) Copies mailed pursuant to distributin list. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/25/2014. (RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ELEANOR SHAFER AND RHONDA L. KNIGHT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:13-cv-00405-JMS-MJD

ORDER1
On November 21, 2013, Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”)
filed a Complaint In Interpleader against Defendants Eleanor Shafer and Rhonda Knight. [Filing
No. 1.] On December 17, 2013, Ms. Knight filed an Answer to the Complaint, [Filing No. 8],
and on January 23, 2014, Ms. Knight filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Ms. Shafer
based on Ms. Shafer’s failure to file an Answer or Appearance in this matter, [Filing No. 10].
Ms. Shafer filed a response to the Motion for Default Judgment on January 28, 2014, stating that
she did not “fully understand that the court needed to be contacted along with Rhonda Knight
and [counsel for MetLife] on Rule #12,” and that she “lacks any knowledge or information in
paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 7, 25 #s 1-6.” [Filing No. 11.]
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) provides that “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit
or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Here, while Ms. Shafer has not timely
answered the Complaint, she has “defended” this action through her response to Ms. Knight’s
Motion for Default Judgment. The Court finds that this response – which specifically refers to
the allegations in the Complaint and states “I…do not want a Default Judgment against myself”
1

As part of the Court’s pilot program regarding hyperlinking in Court filings, this Order contains
hyperlinks to documents previously filed in this case, and to legal authority.
-1-

– demonstrates Ms. Shafer’s intention to “defend” this matter. Additionally, the Court prefers to
resolve cases on the merits, rather than by default. See, e.g., Coleman v. Milwaukee Bd. of Sch.
Dirs., 290 F.3d 932, 935 (7th Cir. 2002) (“the law prefers that cases be resolved on their merits,
not technicalities”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Ms. Knight’s Motion for Default Judgment, [Filing No. 10]. For clarity of the record, however, the Court ORDERS Ms. Shafer to file
an Answer to the Complaint by March 11, 2014 so that the parties’ positions are clearly set forth
going forward.
The Court also notes, however, that while it has some discretion when dealing with pro
se litigants, see, e.g., United States v. Best, 214 F.Supp.2d 897, 899 (N.D. Ind. 2002) (“In recognition of the leeway Defendant was entitled to as a pro se litigant the Court offered Defendant
the opportunity to present evidence and law in support of his objection at a later time”), further
failures by Ms. Shafer to comply with procedural rules will not be excused. To that end, the
Court reminds both Ms. Shafer and Ms. Knight that, should they continue to represent themselves in this litigation, they will be held to the same standards as counsel. See, e.g., Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008) (“it is…well established that pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural rules”).

02/25/2014
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

-2-

Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record

Distribution via U.S. Mail:
Eleanor Shafer
5235 E. Greenbriar Dr. #19
Terre Haute, IN 47802
Rhonda L. Knight
1126 S. 9th St.
Terre Haute, IN 47802

-3-