United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pending
before the Court is Plaintiff Alfa Vision Insurance
Corporation's ("Alfa") First Motion for Default
Judgment as to All Defendants (Doc. 26). The Motion was filed
on November 26, 2018, and none of the Defendants responded to
it. The procedural history of this case necessitates an
awkward resolution of an otherwise simple motion.
Alfa
filed its original Complaint (Doc. 1) on October 16, 2017,
seeking a legal declaration as to potential insurance
obligations. Alfa served all four of the original Defendants,
Marco Guevara ("Guevara"), Maria Lopez ("M.
Lopez"), Maria Elena Lopez ("M.E. Lopez"), and
Roberto Lopez ("R. Lopez") (Docs. 7-11), but they
failed to appear, plead, or otherwise defend. Clerk's
defaults were taken of record on April 19, 2018 (Doc. 18).
Butthen, onAugust14, 2018, Alfa filed a Amended Complaint
(Doc. 21), adding one new claim against one new defendant,
Alejandro Lopez Sigala ("Sigala"). Sigala was
served on August 21, 2018 (Doc. 24), but when he failed to
appear or defend, the Clerk entered a default against him,
too (Doc. 25).
In its
Motion for Default Judgment against all Defendants, Alfa
relies on the Clerk's defaults as to the original
complaint and fails to recognize the superceding effect of
its Amended Complaint. The Court sought to bring this
distinction to Alfa's attention by vacating the
Clerk's defaults as to the original complaint, because
"[i]t is well established that an amended complaint
supercedes an original complaint and renders the original
complaint without legal effect." See the
Court's December 18, 2018 Text Only Order (Doc. 27),
citing In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d. 1064,
1067 (8th Cir. 2000).
To be
sure, the Rules did not require Alfa to serve the Amended
Complaint on the original defendants, since the amended
pleading did not "[assert[] a new claim for relief
against any of them. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(a)(2). By the same token,
however, the defaults that were entered by the Clerk with
respect to Alfa's original complaint were moot, and
therefore could not technically serve as the premise for a
default judgment. See Greater St Louis Constr. Laborers
Welfare Fund v. A.G. Mack Contracting Co., Inc., 2009 WL
2916841, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 4, 2009) (discussing cases
from multiple jurisdictions that found that a clerk's
entry of default was rendered moot upon the filing of an
amended complaint).
After
its Order of December 18th, the Court expected that one of
two things would happen next: either Alfa would move for a
Clerk's default as to the Amended Complaint with
respect to Defendants Guevara, M. Lopez, M.E. Lopez, and R.
Lopez, or Alfa would serve the Amended Complaint on these
Defendants and wait and see if they responded or defaulted
again. Alfa took neither action, so the case remained in a
state of limbo until just last week, when Alfa's counsel
wrote a letter to the Court, see attached Exhibit 1,
seeking further guidance.[1]
At
first blush, it may seem overly technical to moot the
Clerk's defaults as to the original complaint and require
Alfa to seek Clerk's defaults as to the Amended
Complaint. However, the Court finds value in maintaining this
requirement, simply because one operative complaint should
govern the case at all times. If the Court entered a default
judgment against all Defendants, but based the judgment in
part on Clerk's orders referencing two operative
pleadings, the judgment itself would acknowledge the
simultaneous existence of two operative complaints. For the
sake of clarity of the record and to avoid confusion to the
parties, the rule must be that a Clerk's default that
refers to a defunct, superceded complaint must be moot.
See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Yadgarov, 2014 WL 860019,
at *12 (E.D.N.Y. March 5, 2014) (explaining why
"multiple operative pleadings in the same action,
especially with multiple defendants, can be a recipe for
procedural confusion").[2]
The
Court finds it is proper for the Clerk to enter defaults on
the Amended Complaint as to Guevara, M. Lopez, M.E.
Lopez, and R. Lopez. Such defaults were previously entered in
the case with respect to the original complaint, and these
Defendants continue to be in default. The remainder of this
Order will assume the entry of the Clerk's defaults, and
the Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to enter those
defaults.
Turning
now to the substance of Alfa's Motion for Default
Judgment, Rule 55 contemplates a two-step process for the
entry of such judgments. United States v.
Williamson, 2013 WL 7864735, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 21,
2013) (citing Fraserside IPLLC. v. Youngtek Sols.,
Ltd., 796 F.Supp.2d 946, 950-951 (N.D. Iowa 2011)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). First,
pursuant to Rule 55(a), the party seeking a default judgment
must have the Clerk enter the default or defaults by
submitting the required proof that the opposing party or
parties have failed to plead or otherwise defend.
Id. Clerk's defaults have now been entered (or
are assumed to have been entered, see supra) as to
all Defendants in this case. Second, the moving party may
seek entry of judgment on the defaults under either
subdivision (b)(1) or (b)(2) of Rule 55. Id. Here,
Alfa requests entry of judgment by the Court under (b)(2),
but does not request damages; instead, Alfa seeks only a
declaratory judgment as to the parties' rights under a
policy of insurance.
Having
considered the Amended Complaint, the Motion for Default
Judgment, the insurance policy at issue, and Alfa's
supporting documentation and briefing, IT IS
ORDERED that the First Motion for Default Judgment
as to All Defendants (Doc. 26) is GRANTED,
and the Court will file a separate judgment that states that
there is no coverage available under Plaintiff Alfa Vision
Insurance Corporation's Policy No. 11-03-003141872 for
any bodily injuries and/or property damage, of any party,
arising out of the December 7, 2016 motor vehicle accident in
which Separate Defendant Alejandro Lopez Sigala was driving
the insured vehicle, a 2005 Chevrolet Avalanche owned by
Separate Defendant Maria Elena Lopez, without her permission
and while he was not a named insured and/or permissive driver
on the policy. Further, the Court's Judgment will
indicate that Alfa has no duty to provide a defense and/or
indemnity to any party, including, but not limited to,
Separate Defendants Roberto Lopez, Maria Lopez, Maria Elena
Lopez, and Alejandro Sigala, for any claim arising out of the
December 7, 2016 accident.
IT
IS SO ORDERED
---------
Notes:
[1] The Court is not terribly surprised by
counsel's letter and concedes that its text-only Order of
December 18 could have been clearer in ...