Carmichael v. Aranas et al

Filing 90

ORDER denying 88 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 10/18/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RICHARD LEE CARMICHAEL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

3:17-cv-00025-MMD-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
October 18, 2017

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

KATIE LYNN OGDEN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (ECF No. 88). Plaintiff
requests that default judgment be entered against Defendants Michael Koehn and Cynthia Sablica
in the amount of $112,000 based on their failure to answer Plaintiff’s complaint. (Id.)
There are two stages in a default proceeding: the entry of a default followed thereafter, if at
all, by a default judgment. First securing a default is a precondition to securing a default judgment.
See, e.g., VLM Food Trading Int’l, Inc. v. Illinois Trading Co., 811 F.3d 247, 255 (7th Cir. 2016).
Defendants Michael Koehn and Cynthia Sablica filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s Civil Rights
Complaint and Jury Demand on August 14, 2017. (ECF No. 68.) Thus, a default could not be
entered against either Defendant because each has instituted a defense to Plaintiff’s allegations.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Without first securing a default, which Plaintiff has not done, the entry of a
default judgment is not available to Plaintiff as to these Defendants.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (ECF No. 88) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DEBRA K. KEMPI, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk