Opinion
Civ. JKB-23-03446
06-13-2024
CLEARONE ADVANTAGE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL H. KERSEN, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JAMES K. BREDAR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default (ECF No. 62), and Defendant Gilmore's Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer (ECF No. 65). In Gilmore's Motion, he explains that he is not a lawyer or represented by a lawyer, and that he (erroneously) thought that his appearance at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing obviated the need for him to file an Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint. (See ECF No. 65.) Given Gilmore's pro se status, and given this Court's “preference to resolve cases on the merits and to avoid procedural defaults whenever possible,” Parrish v. Leithman, Civ. No. JKB-23-0342, 2023 WL 7632070, at *1 (D. Md. Nov. 14, 2023) (quotations and alterations omitted), the Court will give Gilmore one final opportunity to file an Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. Gilmore's Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer (ECF No. 65) is GRANTED;
2. Gilmore SHALL FILE an Answer no later than Thursday, June 21, 2024;
3. Gilmore is FOREWARNED that the Court will not grant any further extensions of time to file an Answer; and
4. Plaintiff's Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default (ECF No. 62) is DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing such Motion if Gilmore fails to timely file an Answer in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.