Butler v. New Horizons Computer Learning Centers-Great Lakes et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying plaintiff's 38 Amended Motion for Judgment by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiff by US Mail

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ) AMELIA L. BUTLER, ) CASE NO. C16-1184 RSM ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING AMENDED MOTION v. ) FOR JUDGMENT ) NEW HORIZONS COMPUTER ) LEARNING CENTERS-GREAT LAKES, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) 15 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Judgment. 16 Dkt. #38. Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se. She has moved for default judgment 17 against Defendants, apparently under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) and Local Civil 18 Rule 55(b), on the basis that these Defendants failed to file an Answer or otherwise respond to 19 20 21 22 the Complaint after being served. Id. Defendants oppose the motion as improper. Dkt. #9. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, prior to moving for default judgment, the Plaintiff must seek an entry of default under Local Civil Rule 55(a), which provides in part: 23 Upon motion by a party noted in accordance with LCR 7(d)(1) and supported by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the default of any party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought but who has failed to plead or otherwise defend. The affidavit shall specifically show that the defaulting party was served in a manner authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 1 1 See LCR 55(a) and LCR 55(b) (“No motion for judgment by default should be filed against any 2 party unless the court has previously granted a motion for default against that party pursuant to 3 LCR 55(a) or unless default otherwise has been entered.”). 4 Plaintiff has failed to move for default against Defendants. She has further failed to 5 demonstrate that default would be appropriate in any event, as she has failed to provide any 6 7 details as to when these Defendants were served, which would have triggered the time period 8 for any response to the Complaint. In fact, the record indicates that Defendants may not have 9 been served until just days ago.1 Dkts. #44 and #45. 10 For all of these reasons, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Amended 11 Motion for Judgment (Dkt. #38) is DENIED. 12 13 The Clerk SHALL mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. 14 DATED this 14th day of April, 2017. 15 A 16 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 The Court acknowledges that there is a pending motion to dismiss for insufficiency of process, and by making this reference does not imply that it has reached a conclusion as to whether service has actually occurred or whether any such service was proper. The Court merely intends to point out that Plaintiff’s own filings undermine her motion. ORDER PAGE - 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?