Mira v. Maximum Recovery Solutions, Inc., No. 2:2011cv01009 - Document 15 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is direct to reopen this case, and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to vacate the 12 default judgment against the defendant, and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a notation of default against the defendant, and it is further ORDERED, that the plaintiffs 13 motion for a default judgment is respectfully referred to United States Magistrate J udge Gary R. Brown for a recommendation as to whether the motion for a default judgment should be granted, and if so, whether damages should be awarded, including reasonable attorneys fees and costs. Ordered by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 1/20/2012. (Coleman, Laurie)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------X DENISSE MIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER 11-CV-1009 (ADS)(GRB) MAXIMUM RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------X APPEARANCES: Amir J. Goldstein, Esq. Attorney for the plaintiff 166 Mercer Street, Suite 3A New York, NY 10012 NO APPEARANCE Maximum Recovery Solutions, Inc. SPATT, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion for default judgment by the plaintiff, Denisse Mira. Pursuant to Local Rule 55.2(b), a party seeking a default judgment must first obtain a certificate of default from the Clerk of the Court. In this case, the plaintiff moved for an entry of default on July 20, 2011. At that time, a notation of default could not be entered because the defendant had filed an answer to the complaint. On August 19, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge William D. Wall issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court strike the defendant s answer which was not filed by an attorney in contravention of the law governing the appearance of corporations in federal court and grant the plaintiff s motion for an entry of default. The Court adopted Judge Wall s Report on September 9, 2011, and directed the Clerk of the Court to strike the defendant s answer and to enter a default against the defendant. However, due to a clerical error, rather than a notation of default, a default judgment was entered against the defendant and the case was marked as closed. As a result, it is hereby ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is direct to reopen this case, and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to vacate the default judgment against the defendant, and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a notation of default against the defendant, and it is further ORDERED, that the plaintiff s motion for a default judgment is respectfully referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown for a recommendation as to whether the motion for a default judgment should be granted, and if so, whether damages should be awarded, including reasonable attorney s fees and costs. SO ORDERED. Dated: Central Islip, New York January 20, 2012 __/s/ Arthur D. Spatt__________ ARTHUR D. SPATT United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
