Randazza et al v. Cox et al

Filing 234

ORDER Denying 227 Cox's Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 10/2/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

MARC J. RANDAZZA, an individual,
JENNIFER RANDAZZA, an individual, and
NATALIA RANDAZZA, an individual,
Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 2:12-cv-2040-JAD-PAL
Order Denying Motion for Default
Judgment [Doc. 227]

v.
CRYSTAL COX, an individual, et al.
Defendants.

11
12

Defendant/Counterclaimant Crystal Cox has filed counterclaims that have been the subject of

13

significant motion practice. Counterdefendant Randazza has filed both an amended answer to those

14

counterclaims and recently moved (again) for their dismissal. Docs. 223, 224. In a five-sentence

15

request, Cox now moves the court for a “default judgment” against Randazza because his answer to

16

her (now significantly whittled down) counterclaims was not filed within 21 days. Doc. 227. She

17

does not state when these 21 days began to run. Id. And as these claims were the subject of

18

numerous pending motions—including a motion to dismiss—Randazza’s deadline to respond was

19

actually 14 days after the resolution of pending motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). Although

20

Randazza did not file his answer until more than a month after the resolution of those motions, see

21

Docs. 213, 220, he has since answered, amended his answer, and filed a new motion to dismiss. See

22

Docs. 220, 223, 224. In sum, it is apparent in the more than 200 docket entries in this case that

23

Randazza has pled and is actively defending against Cox’s counterclaims, and her motion is denied

24

on its merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).

25

Even if I did not reach the merits of Cox’s motion for default judgment, I would have to deny

26

it. Cox’s request for a default judgment skips a critical procedural step: asking first for the entry of

27

default. See id. And Local Rule 7-2 requires every motion to be supported by a memorandum of

28

Page 1 of 2

1

points and authorities. Cox’s is not. See Doc. 227. These procedural deficiencies are independent

2

reasons that Cox’s motion for default judgment is—and must be—denied.

3
4
5

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Cox’s Motion for Default Judgment [Doc. 227]
is DENIED.
DATED: October 2, 2014.

6

_________________________________
___________________________
__ ____
__ ___ __ _
_
_

7

JENNIFER A. DORSEY
ENNIFER A
IFE
Y
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NITED
DISTRICT JUD
RI
RI
ICT

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 2 of 2