Opinions and documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
MARCIA GALE MARUTANI-
HOLDREN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:25-cv-597-LHP
ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.
Doc. No. 29. On review, the motion (Doc. No. 29) will be DENIED without
prejudice.
Based on Defendant’s failure to comply with Court Orders, on June 11, 2025,
the Court ordered Defendant’s answer stricken and directed the Clerk of Court to
enter default against Defendant. Doc. Nos. 26, 28; see also Doc. Nos. 3, 14, 22, 23.
The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment in accordance with
Local Rule 1.10(c). Doc. No. 26. The next day, Plaintiff filed her motion for
default judgment. Doc. No. 29. In the motion, Plaintiff provides a brief recitation
of the procedural history of this case and states in one sentence: “Plaintiff herein
seeks a default judgment against the Defendant ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, to pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)(B), 16 (f)(1)(c), 37
(b)(2)(A)(iii) and Local Rule 1.10(c).” Id. The motion does not otherwise comply
with Local Rule 3.01(a) because it does not include a memorandum of legal
authority in support, nor does Plaintiff address or include any evidence of damages.
Id.
A party is not entitled to a default judgment merely because a clerk’s default
has been entered. Instead, before entering default judgment, the Court must
ensure that it has jurisdiction over the claims and parties, and that the well pleaded
factual allegations of the complaint, which are assumed to be true, adequately state
a claim for which relief may be granted. See Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l
Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975).1 “Therefore, a court must conduct an
analysis to determine whether the well-pleaded factual allegations of the plaintiff’s
complaint provide a sufficient basis for a judgment against the defendant.” Estes
Express Lines v. Coverlex, Inc., No. 8:19-cv-467-T-36AEP, 2019 WL 13183880, at *1
(M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2019).
1 The Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions prior
to October 1, 1981. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en
banc).
Here, the present motion is insufficient to demonstrate that default judgment
is proper. The motion does not set forth the elements of Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant or demonstrate how the well pleaded allegations of the complaint
establish each of those elements. Without this information, the Court is unable to
determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment. See Hernandez v.
Andujar, No. 8:22-cv-1632-JSM-TGW, 2023 WL 2931712, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24,
2023) (“In order to establish liability, the plaintiff must identify the elements of each
claim upon which she seeks default judgment, with proper legal citations, and after
each element state the admitted facts supporting satisfaction of that element.”).
And the Court notes that Plaintiff does not address her damages at all. Doc. No.
29.
Accordingly, the Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED
without prejudice. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion in
accordance with Local Rule 1.10(c). See Doc. No. 26. A renewed motion shall be
supported by a memorandum of legal authority setting forth the elements of each
cause of action asserted and demonstrating how the well pleaded allegations of the
complaint establish each of the elements of the claims for which Plaintiff seeks
default judgment. In making this showing, Plaintiff must provide pinpoint
citations to the portions of the complaint (by paragraph number) that establish each
of those elements. If the well pleaded allegations of the complaint establish
liability on each claim, then Plaintiff must set forth the legal basis for her entitlement
to damages and present evidence sufficient to establish the damages to be awarded.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 16, 2025.
| ayn
LESLIE AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
A!
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.