Aery v. Beitel

Background

James Paul Aery moved for default judgment against Summit Corrections. He based the motion on Summit’s failure to respond to a summons issued on January 13, 2023, and stated that Summit’s lack of an answer showed it was not taking the case seriously.

The matter came before Judge Katherine Menendez on Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko’s report and recommendation, Aery’s objections, and Aery’s motion for default judgment. The report and recommendation described the factual background, which the district court incorporated by reference.

Court’s reasoning

A default judgment is a judgment entered against a party that has failed to plead or otherwise defend. The court explained that an entry of default by the clerk under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) must come before a court can grant default judgment under Rule 55(b). No clerk’s entry of default had been made in this case.

The court also explained that default judgment remains discretionary even when a clerk has entered default, and that such judgments are generally disfavored because courts prefer decisions on the merits. In addition, the court found that Summit had shown its intent to defend the action by filing a response to the summons. For those reasons, the court concluded that default judgment was not appropriate.

Ruling

The court accepted the report and recommendation, overruled Aery’s objections, and denied Aery’s motion for default judgment. The operative order states that the motion was denied; it does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice. This order addresses the default-judgment motion and does not decide the underlying claims described in the incorporated factual background.