Haywood v. Ruffin

Background

On May 28, 2025, Plaintiff Trineze Lynette Haywood moved for a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and the relevant local rule. The court ordered Defendants Kecie Ancar and Doris Ancar to appear on June 24, 2025, and explain why default judgment should not be entered.

The opinion states that Defendants did not appear at the hearing, had never appeared in the action, had not responded to the Complaint despite receiving extensions, and had not otherwise communicated with the court or Plaintiff.

Ruling

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants on Plaintiff’s first cause of action for civil battery, second cause of action for civil assault, and seventh cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The order did not decide the amount of damages. Instead, the court stated that the action would be referred to the assigned magistrate judge for a damages inquest, meaning a proceeding to determine the damages amount.

The court also ordered Plaintiff to serve Defendants, within two business days after the order was filed, with the default-judgment motion, its supporting papers, and the order itself. Plaintiff was required to file proof of service within two business days after service.

Counsel’s Filing

At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel admitted that the supporting memorandum was almost entirely copied, without attribution, from another federal case. The court warned that such sanctionable plagiarism would not be tolerated as the case moved into the damages-inquest phase. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 30.