Geill v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, LLC

Filing 20

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment 16 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

Case 2:18-cv-11833-DPH-EAS ECF No. 20 filed 09/18/18

PageID.151

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEFFERY L. GEILL,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 18-11833
v.
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES,
LLC,
Defendant.
_________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT [#16]
On June 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed this cause of action. The Court granted his
application to proceed without payment of fees and directed service be conducted by
the U.S. Marshal Service. Dkt. Nos. 4, 5. On August 14, 2018, Plaintiff requested a
Clerk’s Entry of Default, Dkt. No. 11, and the Clerk of the Court denied the request
for Clerk’s Entry of Default because there was no certified document(s) showing
receipt of the Summons and Complaint. Dkt. No. 12. On the same day (August 14,
2018), Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint. Dkt. No. 13. On August 15,
2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Dkt. No. 16, to which
Defendant timely responded. Dkt. No. 17.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. First, there is no

Case 2:18-cv-11833-DPH-EAS ECF No. 20 filed 09/18/18

PageID.152

Page 2 of 3

evidence that Defendant was properly served. The Summons and Complaint were not
addressed to Defendant’s resident agent in Michigan (or elsewhere), and neither the
resident agent nor any other person on behalf of Defendant signed for the Summons
and Complaint when it was sent to Defendant’s headquarters via certified mail.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s service was defective. See, e.g., Rhinehart v. Scutt, No. 2:10CV-10006-DT, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96837, at *32 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 16, 2010).
Second, when Defendant filed its Answer on August 14, 2018, Plaintiff did not
have a motion or request for default pending before the Court. Plaintiff’s request for
Clerk’s Entry of Default had been denied, and Plaintiff had not yet filed his Motion
for Entry of Default Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot satisfy the requirement
pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 55(a) that default may be entered if a party
“has failed to plead or otherwise defend.”
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment
[#16] is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: September 18, 2018

2

Case 2:18-cv-11833-DPH-EAS ECF No. 20 filed 09/18/18

PageID.153

Page 3 of 3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on September 18, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3