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
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?