Doe v. Innovate Financial, Inc.

Background

The court had ordered Jane Doe to explain why she had not complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, which governs service of a summons and complaint, on ProEquities. Doe filed an affidavit of service and maintained that it showed proper service. Doe and ProEquities then disputed whether service was sufficient.

After the court directed the parties to take appropriate action to move the case forward, Doe filed an application for entry of default and a supporting declaration. Entry of default is a clerk’s step that can follow when a defendant fails to respond after being properly served. Doe argued that ProEquities’s failure to respond on time justified that step.

ProEquities’s Request

ProEquities opposed Doe’s application. It continued to challenge the sufficiency of service but stated that it would forgo motion practice under Rule 12(b)(4), which concerns insufficient process, and requested an enlargement of time to respond to the complaint.

Ruling

Without deciding whether service on ProEquities was proper, Judge Tony N. Leung granted ProEquities additional time to respond. The order requires ProEquities to answer or otherwise respond to Doe’s complaint on or before January 7, 2022. It also directs the Clerk of Court to deny Doe’s application for entry of default. The order states that all prior consistent orders remain in effect.

The court relied on its discretion over pretrial procedure, the preference for deciding cases on their merits, ProEquities’s prompt opposition to the default request, and the need for a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the case. The order also notes that an application for entry of default under Rule 55(a) is a nondispositive matter that a magistrate judge may resolve by order.