Williams v. Dee Miracle Auto Group, LLC et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 17 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 2/1/2016. (c/m)(hmls, Deputy Clerk)
United States District Court
District Of Maryland
Ellen Lipton Hollander
District Court Judge
101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
February 1, 2016
MEMORANDUM TO MR. BELL AND COUNSEL
Riesha Williams v. Dee Miracle Auto Group, LLC et al.
Civil Action No. ELH-15-2466
Dear Mr. Bell and Counsel:
By Memorandum (ECF 15) and Order (ECF 16) of January 29, 2016, I granted the
Motion to Vacate (ECF 13) the Clerk’s entries of default (ECF 8, ECF 10) as to defendant
Demont Raymond Bell, but denied the Motion to Vacate (ECF 13) as to defendant Dee Miracle
Auto Group, LLC.
As noted in my Memorandum (ECF 15 at 2), Mr. Bell claimed that he was not properly
served. ECF 13 at 1. According to Mr. Bell, he had no notice of this suit until he received a
letter from plaintiff’s counsel. Id.
On January 29, 2016, soon after the filing of ECF 15 and ECF 16, plaintiff filed a
“Motion for Reconsideration.” ECF 17. The crux of plaintiff’s argument is that Mr. Bell was
properly served, but never responded to the complaint. Id. at 1-2. In particular, plaintiff argues,
id. at 2:
Mr. Bell’s letter to the Court [doc. [ECF] 13] is not accurate for the following
reasons. On October 7, 2015 at 4:40 p.m. Mr. Bell was served in-hand in his individual
capacity at his place of business, 900 Larchmont Ave., Capitol heights, MD 20743 by
William Malone, Private Process Server Exhibit 1. On the same date, time and location
he was also served and accepted same for Dee Miracle Auto Group, LLC. Exhibit 2. Both
summonses were served by Mr. Malone and he signed the affidavits under the penalty of
perjury. See also [Doc [ECF] 5 & [ECF] 6].
Further, plaintiff argues that “since Mr. Bell requested a hearing thirty (30) days have passed and
he has taken no action to engage the services of an attorney.” Id.
I find unpersuasive plaintiff’s contention that the Court should reconsider its
Memorandum (ECF 15) and Order (ECF 16). The Clerk docketed Mr. Bell’s correspondence on
December 30, 2015. ECF 13. During the month that elapsed between Mr. Bell’s submission and
the issuance of my Memorandum (ECF 15) and Order (ECF 16), plaintiff did not respond to Mr.
Bell’s correspondence, despite having notice of Mr. Bell’s submission via CM/ECF. Indeed,
plaintiff never expressed any opposition. Only now, after the issuance of my Memorandum
(ECF 15) and Order (ECF 16), has plaintiff responded to Mr. Bell’s contention that service was
The Fourth Circuit has repeatedly expressed a strong preference that, as a matter of
general policy, “default should be avoided and that claims and defenses be disposed of on their
merits.” Colleton Preparatory Academy, Inc. v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 616 F.3d 413, 417 (4th
Cir. 2010). See also United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 453 (4th Cir. 1993);
Tazco, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Program, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 895
F.2d 949, 950 (4th Cir. 1990); Herbert v. Saffell, 877 F.2d 267, 269 (4th Cir. 1989). Here, Mr.
Bell, requested an opportunity to retain counsel and to adjudicate the merits of the case. See
ECF 13 at 1. Plaintiff does not identify how she will be prejudiced by affording Mr. Bell the
opportunity to adjudicate the merits of the case. See ECF 17 at 2. Moreover, although plaintiff
complains that Mr. Bell has yet to obtain counsel, he is not required to obtain counsel; he may
Accordingly, plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration” (ECF 17) is DENIED.
Despite the informal nature of this Memorandum, it is an Order of the Court, and the
Clerk is directed to docket it as such. The Clerk is further directed to send a copy of this Order
by United States Mail to Mr. Bell at the address below.
Very truly yours,
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge
Mr. Demont Bell
Dee Miracle Auto Group LLC
900 Larchmont Avenue
Capitol Heights, MD 20743
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?