SolutionStream v. 3D Footprints

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 14 Motion for Entry of Default on Counterclaims. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 2/14/18 (alt)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION SOLUTIONSTREAM, a Utah limited liability MEMORANDUM DECISION AND company, ORDER DENYING [14] MOTION FOR DEFAULT ON COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:17-cv-00605-DN 3D FOOTPRINTS, an Oregon corporation, District Judge David Nuffer Defendant. In responding to the complaint by plaintiff SolutionStream, defendant 3D Footprints 1 asserted counterclaims with its answer. 2 The counterclaims were filed June 15, 2017. After more than seven months, SolutionStream had not filed a response to the counterclaims, although both parties participated in the litigation, including an attorneys planning meeting, in the interim. 3D Footprints has filed a Motion for Entry of Default (the “Motion”). 3 Just before the Motion was filed, on the same day, SolutionStream filed its Reply to Counterclaim. 4 The Motion can be resolved without a response from SolutionStream. Applying Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Motion is denied. Rule 55(a), the rule governing entry of default, provides: “When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by 1 The defendant contends that Cropper Medical, Inc. is the proper party in interest and that 3D Footprints is a DBA. For convenience, the defendant is referred to as “3D Footprints.” 2 Answer by Cropper Medical, Inc. to Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims, docket no. 4, filed June 15, 2017. 3 Docket no. 14, filed February 5, 2018. 4 Docket no. 12, filed February 5, 2018. affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” 5 At the time the Motion was filed, SolutionStream had not “failed to plead or otherwise defend.” 6 SolutionStream no doubt was alerted to the need to file its response be 3D Footprints’ mistaken filing of a motion for default judgment—which must be preceded by entry of default under Rule 55. In any case, a default would not serve the purpose of Rule 55 here, where SolutionStream is actively litigating the case and a response to the counterclaims is now in the record. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion 7 is DENIED. Dated February 14, 2018. BY THE COURT: ____________________________ David Nuffer United States District Judge 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 6 Id. 7 Docket no. 14. 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?