Lamb v. Nickels
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 13 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 14 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 21 Second Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 8/8/2017. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 8/9/17)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JERRY G. LAMB,
Civil Action No. PX 16-02705
PAUL GROSKLAGS et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
This complaint was originally filed on July 27, 2016. Plaintiff has twice been granted an
extension of time to serve process on defendants and summons has been reissued. ECF Nos. 5 &
9. On both occasions, Plaintiff was informed that he needed to serve Defendants within a fixed
period of time. For example on February 13, 2017, Plaintiff was granted a final extension and
apprised that he must serve Defendants within 60 days. ECF No. 9. That time also passed and so,
on April 26, 2017, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why the case
should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve Defendants. See ECF No. 11. Plaintiff finally
served Defendants on April 10, 2017 making their response due on or before June 9, 2017.
On June 7, 2017, two days before Defendants’ deadline for responding the complaint,
Defendants filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to the Amended Complaint to
an including August 8, 2017. ECF No. 13. Defendants explained that their counsel’s “competing
demands of other cases . . . will make it difficult to meet the present June 9, 2017 deadline.” Id.
Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion for extension of time, arguing that Defendants had not
demonstrated good cause warranting the extension. ECF No. 14 at 4. In his response, Plaintiff
also moves for default judgment. Id. at 5. On August 4, 2017, Defendants filed an additional
extension of time, requesting that they be permitted to file a response to and including August
25, 2017. ECF No. 21.
Requests for extensions of time are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6. The
Rule provides, in relevant part, that “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time,
the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . with or without motion or notice if the court
acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or . . . on motion
made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(b)(1).
Defendants filed their first motion for extension of time within the original time to
respond to the Amended Complaint. The Court finds that good cause exists to grant the
extension. In his opposition, Plaintiff does not argue that granting the extension would prejudice
him and the Court notes that Plaintiff received several extensions of his own. Additionally, the
Court’s resolution of this case would benefit from an answer from the Defendants. Accordingly,
the Court grants Defendants’ first motion for extension of time at ECF No. 13. Because of the
Court’s delay in resolving this motion, the Court will permit Defendants to file a response to the
Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order. Defendants’ second motion for extension of time is denied, however, because they have
not demonstrated that their failure to act was a result of excusable neglect as Fed. R. Civ. P.
In his response to Defendants’ first motion for extension of time, Plaintiff moves for
default judgment. See ECF No. 14 at 5. Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
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.” Rule 55 establishes a two-step process for obtaining a default
judgment: the clerk’s entry of default followed by the entry of default judgment. See Wilson v.
Turner, No. ELH-13-3497, 2014 WL 4426126, at *1 (D. Md. Sept. 2, 2014); 10A C. Wright &
A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2682 (4th ed.) (“Prior to obtaining a default judgment
under either Rule 55(b)(1) or Rule 55(b)(2), there must be an entry of default as provided by
Rule 55(a).”). Entry of default is thus “merely ‘an interlocutory step that is taken under Rule
55(a) in anticipation of a final judgment by default under Rule 55(b).’” Phillips v. Weiner, 103
F.R.D. 177, 179 (D. Me. 1984) (quoting 10 C. Wright, A. Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2692 at 465 (2d ed. 1983)). Plaintiff failed to request a clerk’s entry of default.
Accordingly, his motion is denied.
For the reasons stated above, it is this 8th day of August, 2017, by the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED that:
The Motion for Extension of Time filed by Defendants (ECF No. 13) BE, and the same
hereby IS, GRANTED;
Defendants will have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the issuance of this ORDER to file a
response to the Amended Complaint;
The Motion for Default Judgment filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 14) BE, and the same
hereby IS, DENIED;
The Second Motion for Extension of Time filed by Defendants (ECF No. 21) BE, and the
same hereby IS, DENIED;
The Clerk will transmit copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Plaintiff and
counsel for Defendants.
United States District Judge
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?