Soto v. Christiansted Equipment, Ltd. et al
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 JACK SOTO, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:09-cv-96 v. 5 5 F&M MAFCO, INC., CHRISTIANSTED 5 EQUIPMENT LTD., and DAN McKENNA, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Rachel Morrison, Esq. Charles E. Lockwood, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Entry of Default Against Defendants F&M Mafco, Inc.[,] and Daniel McKenna (Docket No. 11), said Defendants’ separate oppositions to said motion, and Defendant F&M Mafco, Inc.’s Motion to Enlarge Time to File a Responsive Motion (Docket No. 17). This order is issued without necessity of further response and/or reply. It is well established that entries of default are disfavored; resolving cases on their merits is generally preferred. See, e.g., United States v. Mulvenna, No. 09-3012, 2010 WL 691203 at *1 (3d Cir. March 1, 2010) (slip copy). Case: 1:09-cv-00096-WAL-GWC Document #: 21 Filed: 05/04/10 Page 1 of 3 Soto v. F&M Mafco, Inc. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_09-cv-00096/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_09-cv-00096-0.pdf
SHA-256 4974c05bcba19da4f4b902b8d70c8c3d71c7d9b5f31b99ec74b519a40c8f9f0d
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-4974c05bcba1
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 JACK SOTO, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:09-cv-96 v. 5 5 F&M MAFCO, INC., CHRISTIANSTED 5 EQUIPMENT LTD., and DAN McKENNA, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Rachel Morrison, Esq. Charles E. Lockwood, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Entry of Default Against Defendants F&M Mafco, Inc.[,] and Daniel McKenna (Docket No. 11), said Defendants’ separate oppositions to said motion, and Defendant F&M Mafco, Inc.’s Motion to Enlarge Time to File a Responsive Motion (Docket No. 17). This order is issued without necessity of further response and/or reply. It is well established that entries of default are disfavored; resolving cases on their merits is generally preferred. See, e.g., United States v. Mulvenna, No. 09-3012, 2010 WL 691203 at *1 (3d Cir. March 1, 2010) (slip copy). Case: 1:09-cv-00096-WAL-GWC Document #: 21 Filed: 05/04/10 Page 1 of 3 Soto v. F&M Mafco, Inc. 1:09-cv-96 Order In the matter at bar, the Court finds that entry of default against said Defendants is not warranted. Defendant McKenna claims that he has not been served properly. Defendant M&F Mafco, Inc., is a corporation, whose agent for service of process failed to notify counsel in a timely manner. The Court finds that said Defendants acted promptly to respond to the motion for entry of default. In addition, Defendant McKenna already has filed a motion to dismiss in response to the complaint. Consequently the Court will deny the motion for entry of default. Having found that Plaintiff is not entitled to entry of default, the Court further finds that Defendant F&M Mafco, Inc.’s motion to enlarge time should be granted. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion For Entry of Default Against Defendants F&M Mafco, Inc.[,] and Daniel McKenna (Docket No. 11) DENIED. 2. Defendant F&M Mafco, Inc.’s Motion to Enlarge Time to File a Responsive Motion (Docket No. 17) is GRANTED. 3. Defendant F&M Mafco, Inc., shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint on or before May 14, 2010. Case: 1:09-cv-00096-WAL-GWC Document #: 21 Filed: 05/04/10 Page 2 of 3 Soto v. F&M Mafco, Inc. 1:09-cv-96 Order ENTER: Dated: May 4, 2010 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:09-cv-00096-WAL-GWC Document #: 21 Filed: 05/04/10 Page 3 of 3