Summary
entering a final judgment against the defendant, a Swiss company, and finding that the defendant had been validly served; that the defendant entered its appearance through counsel; that counsel was allowed to withdraw by order of the court; that the court ordered the defendant to obtain substitute counsel (licensed to practice in the court's jurisdiction) on two occasions; and that no attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction had entered an appearance on the defendant's behalf; and that defendant was therefore in default
Summary of this case from Dontos v. Vendomation NZ Ltd.Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:00-CV-1388-P
August 19, 2003
ORDER
This matter comes on for consideration pursuant to this Court's Order dated June 11,2002, and the Request for Leave to File Final Default Judgment filed by Plaintiffs PalWeb Corporation and Plastic Pallet Production, Inc. The Court, having reviewed the evidence before it and the Court file, in this matter FINDS that Defendant Vimonta AG has been validly served with the Complaint and Summons; that Defendant entered its appearance in this matter through its counsel, Eugene Zemp DuBose; that counsel for Defendant, Eugene Zemp DuBose, was allowed to withdraw by order of this Court dated July 20, 2001; that on July 25, 2001, this Court ordered Defendant to obtain substitute licensed counsel and to enter an appearance herein within thirty days of that Order; that Defendant failed to timely obtain substitute counsel in this action; that this Court entered an Order on June 11, 2002, granting default judgment against Defendant and ordering Plaintiffs to submit evidence of their damages; that on August 28,2002, Plaintiffs requested leave to submit a proposed final judgment out of time and for additional time to serve Defendant with copies of certain court documents in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents; that the Court granted Plaintiffs' request on October 28, 2002; that Plaintiffs served Defendant with the specified court documents on January 10,2003; that Defendant timely responded to this Court's order to show cause why default judgment should not be entered in favor of Plaintiffs, in which Defendant again disputed this Court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over Defendant; that on June 9, 2003, this Court entered an order directing that, unless an attorney licensed to practice in this jurisdiction entered an appearance on behalf of Defendant within fifteen days after service of said Order, this Court would enter a final default judgment against Defendant without further motion from Plaintiffs; that the Court's Order of June 9,2003, was served on Defendant on July 18, 2003, in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents; and that to date no attorney licensed to practice in this jurisdiction has entered an appearance on Defendant's behalf.
The Court further FINDS that Defendant has been served with notice of the Plaintiffs' request for entry of final judgment by default pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents. However, Defendant has failed and refused to obtain substitute counsel as ordered by the Court and is, therefore, in default.
The Court therefore DEEMS the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint to be true and correct. The Court GRANTS JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiffs, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE the counterclaims asserted by Defendant, and GRANTS the declaratory relief prayed for in Count I of the Complaint. Finally, at Plaintiffs' request, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Count II of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
It is so ordered.