Reed v. Arbor Professional Solutions

Filing 8

OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ARELIOUS REED, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 17-10993 Honorable Linda V. Parker v. ARBOR PROFESSIONAL SOLUTIONS, Defendant. _________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT On February 28, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this pro se action against Defendant in Michigan state court. Defendant removed Plaintiff’s Complaint to federal court on March 29, 2017, asserting original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant violated the federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Defendant had not yet responded to the Complaint. (ECF No. 5.) Defendant, however, moved for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, which the Court granted in an April 6, 2017 order. Pursuant to that order, Defendant’s responsive pleading is not due until April 19, 2017. Moreover, a party should not request a default judgment before a default is first requested and entered pursuant to Rule 55(a). Plaintiff’s request for a default judgment therefore is premature. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 5) is DENIED. s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: April 13, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, April 13, 2017, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail. s/ Richard Loury Case Manager

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?