Opinion
No. 3:19CV23-DAS
03-18-2021
MICHAEL POWELL PLAINTIFF v. FRANK SHAW, ET AL. DEFENDANTS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION [58] FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the court on the motion [58] by the plaintiff for default judgment against defendants Thomas, Hart, and Murphy. "Because of the seriousness of a default judgment, and although the standard of review is abuse of discretion, even a slight abuse of discretion may justify reversal." CJC Holdings, Inc. v. Wright & Lato, Inc., 979 F.2d 60, 63 n. 1 (5 Cir.1992). (quotations omitted). See also United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 763 F.2d 181, 183 (5 Cir.1985). Furthermore, federal courts should not be agnostic with respect to the entry of default judgments, which are "generally disfavored in the law" and thus "should not be granted on the claim, without more, that the defendant had failed to meet a procedural time requirement." Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co. v. Metal Trades Council, 726 F.2d 166, 168 (5 Cir.1984). Thus, "where there are no intervening equities any doubt should, as a general proposition, be resolved in favor of the movant to the end of securing a trial upon the merits." Gen. Tel. Corp. v. Gen. Tel. Answering Serv., 277 F.2d 919, 921 (5 Cr.1960).
In this case, defendants Thomas, Hart, and Murphy have not been served with process; as such, the instant motion [58] for default judgment against these defendants is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this, the 18th day of March, 2021.
/s/ David A. Sanders
DAVID A. SANDERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE