Czeiszperger v. Prudential Group Life Insurance et al

Filing 37

ORDER DISMISSING CASE BY REASON OF SETTLEMENT. CASE CLOSED. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 7/14/15. (jtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
GEORGE CZEISZPERGER

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 3:15-CV-00037-DMB-SAA

PRUDENTIAL GROUP LIFE
INSURANCE; D.L., a minor

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
BY REASON OF SETTLEMENT
The Court has been advised that this action has been settled, or is in the process of being
settled. Therefore, it is unnecessary that the action remain upon the calendar of the Court. 1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice; (2) the motion to set aside default,2 Doc. #19, is DENIED as moot; (3) the motion
for interpleader and dismissal, Doc. #22, is DENIED as moot. The Court retains complete
jurisdiction to vacate this Order and to reopen the action upon cause shown that settlement has
not been completed and further litigation is necessary.
SO ORDERED, this 14th day of July, 2015.
/s/ Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The name of D.L., a minor, appears in various places on this Court’s docket. The Clerk is directed to replace all
docket references to D.L.’s name with her initials. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2.
1

The Court notes that, in the motion to set aside default, Defendant D.L. “requests that this Court award reasonable
attorneys’ fees for the time spent preparing this response in light of Plaintiff’s refusal to abandon the application for
default after receiving notice of … insufficiency of service of Defendant.” Doc. #19 at 6. Neither the motion to set
aside default nor the memorandum supporting it state a legal basis for seeking fees. See Doc. #19; Doc. #20. The
Court construes the request for attorney’s fees as a request for sanctions for violation of Rule 11(b)’s requirements
governing representations to the Court. However, Rule 11 requires that “[a] motion for sanctions must be made
separately from any other motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Insofar as Defendant’s request was not contained in a
separate motion, it is denied.
2