Williams et al v. Rogers et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 26 Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Brandon Rogers. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on October 20, 2015 (dsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
ELMER WILLIAMS, et al.
V.

PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-116-KS-MTP

BRANDON ROGERS, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for
Default Judgment [26].
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises from an automobile accident. Plaintiff Elmer Williams was
driving a vehicle; Defendant Brandon Rogers was his passenger. Rogers was
intoxicated, and he dropped a lit cigarette on the floor of the vehicle. Williams
attempted to find the cigarette and ran off the road. The vehicle rolled over several
times, injuring Williams.
Williams and his wife filed a Complaint [1-2] in the Circuit Court of Forrest
County, Mississippi, which was removed [1] to this Court. They asserted two claims
against Rogers: negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. They seek a
wide variety of damages, including loss of consortium, lost wages, past and future
medical expenses, and emotional distress.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint [1-2] on May 20, 2014. A copy of the Complaint

was served on Defendant Brandon Rogers on September 15, 2014 [7].1 Defendant’s
answer was due on or before October 6, 2014, FED. R. CIV. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), but he failed
to file one. Therefore, the Clerk properly entered his default [11]. See FED. R. CIV. P.
55(a). Plaintiffs subsequently filed their Motion for Default Judgment [12].
By his default, Defendant Rogers admitted Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations
of fact. Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir.
1975). Therefore, in addressing a motion for default judgment, the Court accepts the
factual allegations of the Complaint as true. The entry of a default, however, “does not
in itself warrant the court in entering a default judgment. There must be a sufficient
basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered.” Id. “Default judgments are a drastic
remedy, not favored by the Federal Rules and resorted to by courts only in extreme
situations.” Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass’n, 874 F.2d 274, 276
(5th Cir. 1989). “A party is not entitled to a default judgment as a matter of right, even
where the defendant is technically in default.” Ganther v. Ingle, 75 F.3d 207, 212 (5th
Cir. 1996). “[F]ederal courts should not be agnostic with respect to the entry of default
judgments, which are generally disfavored in the law and thus should not be granted
on the claim, without more, that the defendant had failed to meet a procedural time
requirement.” Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2000). “[W]here there are
no intervening equities any doubt should, as a general proposition, be resolved in favor

1

The record contains a letter from another individual named Brandon Rogers
[1-3]. To be clear, Plaintiffs initially served the wrong individual, and the Complaint
was served on the correct Brandon Rogers after removal [7].
2

of . . . securing a trial upon the merits.” Id.
In its Memorandum Opinion [13] addressing Plaintiffs’ initial Motion for Default
Judgment against Rogers, the Court noted that Plaintiffs failed to cite any Mississippi
law supporting their argument that Rogers – a passenger – owed Plaintiff Elmer
Williams – the driver – a duty to maintain control of his cigarette. Plaintiffs merely
recited the facts demonstrating that Rogers was in default, without providing any
substantive discussion of Mississippi tort law. They cited no case law addressing the
duty of care owed to drivers by their passengers. They failed to even recite the bare
elements of their causes of action. It is not the Court’s responsibility to research
Mississippi law and advance an argument on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the
Court denied their Motion for Default Judgment [12].
On October 1, 2015, the Court granted [25] State Farm’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [17]. It gave Plaintiffs two weeks to file an amended motion for default
judgment as to Rogers and cure their briefing deficiencies. Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Motion for Default Judgment [26], but they wholly failed to provide any discussion of
Mississippi tort law. They did not provide any legal argument demonstrating that the
admitted facts from the Complaint subject Rogers to liability under Mississippi law.
Once again, the Court declines to make their argument for them.
Therefore, Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the admitted allegations of their
pleading entitle them to a judgment against Defendant Brandon Rogers, and the Court
denies their Amended Motion for Default Judgment [26].
III. CONCLUSION
3

For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default
Judgment [26] against Defendant Brandon Rogers.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 20th day of October, 2015.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4