TD Bank, N.A. v. Carland Tractor and Equip., Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying without prejudice Pltf's 27 Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Carland Tractor and Equip., Inc. and 28 Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Anthony E. Carland. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 5/13/16. (ejb)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00248-MR-DSC

TD BANK, N.A.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CARLAND TRACTOR AND EQUIP.,
)
INC., ANTHONY E. CARLAND, MAX )
LOWE CARLAND JR., and ELLEN C. )
CARLAND,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment against Defendant Carland Tractor and Equip., Inc. [Doc. 27] and
the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Anthony E.
Carland [Doc. 28].
The Plaintiff initiated this action on November 9, 2015 against the
Defendants Carland Tractor and Equip., Inc., Anthony E. Carland, Max Lowe
Carland Jr., and Ellen C. Carland. [Doc. 1]. Defendants Max Lowe Carland
Jr. and Ellen C. Carland filed an Answer and Counterclaim on January 6,
2016. [Doc. 13]. On January 26, 2016, the Clerk made entries of default
against the Defendants Carland Tractor and Equip., Inc. and Anthony E.

Carland. [Docs. 20, 21]. The Plaintiff now seeks the entry of a default
judgment against the Carland Tractor and Equip., Inc. and Anthony E.
Carland. [Docs. 27, 28].
The Plaintiff’s Motions for Default Judgment are premature at this time.
It is well-established that “when one of several defendants who is alleged to
be jointly liable defaults, judgment should not be entered against that
defendant until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all
defendants, or all defendants have defaulted.” 10A Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2690
(3d ed. 2008). This rule is equally applicable beyond the context of joint and
several liability to “situations in which several defendants have closely
related defenses.” Id.; see also United States ex rel. Hudson v. Peerless Ins.
Co., 374 F.2d 942, 944-45 (4th Cir.1967).
In the present case, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are jointly
and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the unpaid balance on a promissory
note. To permit the entry of a default judgment against Carland Tractor and
Equip., Inc. and Anthony E. Carland now would create the potential for
inconsistent results at the conclusion of the case. Thus, the appropriate
procedure for the Plaintiff to follow is to await a final ruling on the merits as
to the remaining Defendants before seeking the entry of a default judgment
2

against these Defendants. See, e.g., Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Dennis Ins.
Group, Inc., No. 3:08-cv-00173-FDW, 2009 WL 81213, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Jan.
9, 2009) (Whitney, J.).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment against Defendant Carland Tractor and Equip., Inc. [Doc. 27] and
the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Anthony E.
Carland [Doc. 28] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: May 13, 2016

3