Dazser-ORL Corp. v. Steward Med. Grp.

Full title: DAZSER-ORL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. STEWARD MEDICAL GROUP, INC.…

Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

Date published: Apr 25, 2024

6:24-cv-121-ACC-EJK (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2024)

Opinion

6:24-cv-121-ACC-EJK

04-25-2024

DAZSER-ORL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. STEWARD MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Defendant.

EMBRY J. KIDD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER

EMBRY J. KIDD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Second Motion for Clerk's Default (the “Motion”) (Doc. 11), filed April 5, 2024. Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant Steward Medical Group, Inc., on January 19, 2024, asserting state law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. (Doc. 1.) The Amended Verified Return of Service affidavit reflects that Defendant was served on January 29, 2024, through service on its registered agent, CT Corporation System. (Doc. 11-1.) Plaintiff now seeks entry of a clerk's default against Defendant for its failure to appear in this case. (Doc. 11.)

II. STANDARD

“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise,

the clerk must enter the party's default.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Before the clerk may enter default, he or she must determine that effective service has been made on the defaulting defendant because, without effective service, there is no jurisdiction and no obligation to answer or “otherwise defend.” See Kelly v. Florida, 233 Fed. App'x 883, 885 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. (Doc. 1 ¶ 3.) Defendant provides healthcare services in Brevard County, Florida. (Id. ¶ 6.) It is registered to do business in Florida as a foreign not for profit corporation.¹ Under the federal rules, a corporate defendant may be served by:

1 Detail by Entity Name of Steward Medical Group, Inc., Division of Corporations, an official State of Florida website, https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquiryty pe=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=STEWARDMEDICA LGROUP%20F170000010400&aggregateId=fornp-f17000001040-e790318d-8a1f-483b-94e9- 59c80cd62254&searchTerm=Steward%20Medical%20Group&listNameOrder=STE WARDMEDICALGROUP%20F170000010400 (last visited Apr. 23, 2024).

1elivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and-if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires-by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant[.]

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B) (emphasis added).

The Amended Verified Return of Service affidavit reflects that Defendant was served on January 29, 2024, through service on its registered agent, CT Corporation System, by serving a manager for the registered agent. (Doc. 11-1.) Florida's Division of Corporation's website confirms that CT Corporation System is Defendant's registered agent. See supra n.1. Therefore, service was effective under Rule 4(h)(1)(B).²Since Defendant was served on January 29, 2024, and more than 21 days have passed with no responsive pleading filed, default is appropriate. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i).

2 Moreover, Florida Statute § 48.091(4) states that service of process on an employee of a registered agent that is not a natural person is acceptable.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 11) is GRANTED.

2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a default against Defendant.

DONE AND ORDERED