Addiction & Detoxification Institute, LLC v. Rapid Drug Detox Center

Filing 19

ORDER Denying Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's 10 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Addiction & Detoxification Institute, LLC, Setting Aside 9 Clerks Entry of Default and Notice of Hearing ( Scheduling Conference set for 8/5/2013 02:15 PM before District Judge Denise Page Hood). Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (Monda, H)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ADDICTION & DETOXIFICATION
INSTITUTE, LLC,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
Case No. 13-cv-11754
Honorable Denise Page Hood

v.
RAPID DRUG DETOX CENTER,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,
_______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT, ORDER SETTING ASIDE
DEFAULT JUDGMENT, AND NOTICE OF HEARING
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Rapid Drug
Detox Center’s (RDDC) Motion for Entry of Default Judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 55. RDDC requests that the Court find that Rapid Drug Detox
Marketing, LLC has not infringed on certain patents and that these patents are invalid.
RDDC further requests an award of costs and fees. For the reasons stated below,
RDDC’s Motion for Entry of Default is denied. The Court further orders that the
default judgment against A&D is set aside.
On

November

9,

2011,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant

Addiction

&

Detoxification, LLC (A&D) filed this action in the Northern District of Illinois based
on an alleged patent infringement. On March 8, 2012, RDDC filed a motion to transfer

to the Eastern District of Michigan and an Answer and Counterclaim. On March 14,
2012, the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman of the Northern District of Illinois
stayed the case, including all responsive pleadings. On March 11, 2013, Judge
Coleman granted RDDC’s motion to transfer. The case was transferred to the Eastern
District of Michigan on April 18, 2013.
RDDC filed a Request for Entry of Default on May 14, 2013. The Clerk entered
a default as to A&D on May 20, 2013. RDDC filed a Motion for an Extension on July
2, 2013 and Answer to RDDC’s Counterclaim on July 3, 2013. Counsel for A&D
indicates that it has attempted unsuccessfully to contact RDDC counsel about an
extension so that A&D could obtain local counsel pursuant to Eastern District of
Michigan Local Rule 83(f). A&D further explains that it did not receive a copy of
RDDC’s motion for default or answer until May 29, 2013 by mail.
There must first be an entry of default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 55(a) before a party may obtain a default judgment. Shepard Claims Serv.
Inc. v. Williams Darrah & Assoc., 796 F.2d 190, 193 (6th Cir. 1986). “When 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). The party must then apply to the
Court for entry of the default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). “If the party against
2

whom a default judgment is sought has appeared personally or by a representative,
that party or its representative must be served with written notice of the application
at least 7 days before the hearing.” Id. The Court may conduct an accounting,
determine amount of damages, establish the truth of any allegations by evidence, or
investigate any other matter. Id.
The Court is not satisfied that A&D had proper notice of the entry of default.
It indicates that it only received notice of the default after RDDC requested entry of
default and the Clerk entered default against A&D. Default judgment is inappropriate
under these circumstances. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of
Default Judgment [Docket No. 10, filed May 20, 2013] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Entry of Default as to Addiction
& Detoxification Institute, LLC [Docket No. 9, filed May 20, 2013] is SET ASIDE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond [Docket No. 14, filed July 2, 2013] is DEEMED
MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to appear for a scheduling

3

conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 on Monday, August 5,
2013 at 2:15 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: July 22, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on July 22, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4