Opinion
Civil Action 3:23-CV-433-SA-RP
02-28-2024
THORNTON GROUP TECHNOLOGY, LLC PLAINTIFF v. PRIME HEALTH PARTNERS, LLC; ELITE MEDICAL LABORATORY SOLUTIONS, LLC; AND DOES 1-50 DEFENDANTS
ORDER
SHARION AYCOCK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On January 29, 2024, Thornton filed its Second Amended Complaint [10] against Prime Health Partners, LLC and Elite Medical Laboratory Solutions, LLC. Thornton later filed a Proof of Service [12], indicating that it completed service of process on Elite on January 30, 2024. After Elite did not timely respond, the Clerk of Court entered a Notice of Past Due Answer.
Now, Thornton has filed a Motion for Default Judgment [13], requesting that the Court “grant its Motion for Default Judgment and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff.” [13] at p. 1. The request is premature.
“Prior to obtaining a default judgment under either Rule 55(b)(1) or Rule 55(b)(2), there must be an entry of default as provided by Rule 55(a).” Harvey v. Westwego Police Dept., 2023 WL 6644416, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 12, 2023) (quoting 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2682 (4th ed. 2023)) (emphasis added). “In other words, a plaintiff seeking a default judgment must proceed through two steps. First, the plaintiff must show proper service of the complaint and move for an entry of default, which is simply a notation of the party's default on the clerk's record of the case. . . Second, after default has been entered, the plaintiff may move for a default judgment under Rule 55(b).” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Thornton has not completed the first step of this two-step process, as it has not moved for an entry of default. Therefore, the present Motion [13] is procedurally improper and therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 28th day of February, 2024.