SolutionStream v. 3D Footprints
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 14 Motion for Entry of Default on Counterclaims. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 2/14/18 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
SOLUTIONSTREAM, a Utah limited liability MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING  MOTION FOR
DEFAULT ON COUNTERCLAIMS
Case No. 2:17-cv-00605-DN
3D FOOTPRINTS, an Oregon corporation,
District Judge David Nuffer
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
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.”
Answer by Cropper Medical, Inc. to Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims, docket no. 4, filed June
Docket no. 14, filed February 5, 2018.
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:
United States District Judge
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
Docket no. 14.
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?