Opinion
1:22-cv-01551-JLT-EPG
04-03-2023
G3 ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, v. FORTRESS NUTRITION, LLC Defendant.
ORDER TO FILE MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 19).
Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant Fortress Nutrition, LLC on November 30, 2022. (ECF No. 1). The complaint asserts that Defendant breached a repayment agreement and brings three causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) open book account; and (3) account stated.
After Defendant failed to appear and respond to the complaint, Plaintiff obtained a clerk's entry of default. (ECF No. 9). On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff moved for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). (ECF No. 11). On March 9, 2023, the Court recommended that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment be denied without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to explain how service was achieved, failed to address the relevant factors regarding an entry of default judgment, and failed to justify an award of attorney fees and interest. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff filed no objections, and the District Judge adopted the recommendation on March 31, 2023, denying the motion for default judgment without prejudice, and referring the case back for further proceedings. (ECF No. 19). Thus, the Court will set a deadline for Plaintiff to file a revised motion for default judgment.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. By no later than May 3, 2023, Plaintiff shall file a revised motion for default judgment, complete in itself, and without reference to the prior motion for default judgment and supporting documents.
2. Plaintiff's revised motion for default judgment shall provide developed argument, including specific citation to the record and relevant legal authority, in addressing the requirements discussed in the Court's findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18) and any other applicable requirements. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1)(B) (noting that motions must “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order).
3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.
If Plaintiff believes that it cannot show proper service on Defendant, it may alternatively file a response showing cause why the time period to serve Defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) should be extended and proposing a new date to accomplish service. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.