Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc. v. Prinzo

Filing 23

ORDER denying without prejudice 22 Motion for Default Judgment Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 9/3/2015 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
RONALDO DESIGNER JEWELRY, INC.
VS.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-73(DCB)(MTP)

PHILLIP PRINZO

DEFENDANT
ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the plaintiff Ronaldo
Designer Jewelry, Inc.’s Motion for Default Judgment (docket entry
22), filed August 27, 2015.

After careful consideration of the

plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds as follows:
Obtaining a default judgment involves a two-step process. The
first step involves the application for an entry of default by the
Clerk against a party who fails to “plead or otherwise defend.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a).

After the entry of default is obtained, the

second step requires a motion for default judgment pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b).
After a defendant’s default has been entered, a plaintiff may
apply for a judgment based on such entry of default.

New York Life

Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 141 (5th Cir. 1996)(citation
omitted).

The procedural background of this case establishes that

there has been no entry of default by the clerk, and no application
for entry of default pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a).

Entry of

default from the clerk of court under Rule 55(a) is a prerequisite
to obtaining a default judgment under rule 55(b).

Gilbert v.

Eckerd Drugs, 1998 WL 388567 *3 (E.D. La. July 8, 1998).

The

plaintiff’s motion for default judgment must therefore be denied
for failure to comply with Rule 55.

Id.; see also Garibaldi v.

Orleans Parish School Board, 1997 WL 375666, *1 (E.D. La. July 2,
1997).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff Ronaldo Designer
Jewelry, Inc.’s Motion for Default Judgment (docket entry 22) is
DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this the 3rd day of September, 2015.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2