BUCK v. THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY et al
Filing
5
ORDER denying 4 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 2/7/13. (sr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
___________________________________
RUTH E. BUCK
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY, et al.
:
Civil Action No: 12-1611
ORDER
:
Defendants.
:
___________________________________ :
SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE
This action comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff Ruth E. Buck for default
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2); and the Court, having considered
Plaintiff’s submissions, and it appearing that:
1.
Plaintiff commenced this civil action on March 9, 2012. (See D.E. No. 1).
2.
On August 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that default judgment be
entered against all defendants. (See D.E. No. 4).
3.
Prior to filing the motion for default judgment, Plaintiff did not apply to the Court
for an entry of default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). (See Husain v. Casino
Control Com’n, 265 Fed. Appx 130, 133 (3d Cir. 2008) (finding that “entry of
default by the Clerk under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) constitutes a
general prerequisite for a subsequent default judgment under Rule 55(b)”)
(citations omitted)).
4.
Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and directs
Plaintiff to seek default against the Defendants within 30 days of the date of this
order. Therefore, Plaintiff may refile the motion for default judgment.
Accordingly, IT IS on this 7th day of February, 2013, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion
is DENIED without prejudice.
s/Esther Salas_______
Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.
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?