CLARKE v. JOHN DOES 1-3, 2:13CV00026 KGB/JTR. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20130820744
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 19, 2013
Summary: ORDER J. THOMAS RAY, Magistrate Judge. On May 16, 2013, service was on Defendant Winkler at her last known employer was returned as executed. Doc. #45 (service address sealed). On July 17, 2013, the Court issued an Order directing Defendant Winkler to show cause why a default judgment should not be entered against her due to her failure to timely file an Answer or other responsive pleading. Doc. #55. On July 29, 2013, Defendant Winkler filed a pro se Answer. Doc. #57. On July 30, 201
Summary: ORDER J. THOMAS RAY, Magistrate Judge. On May 16, 2013, service was on Defendant Winkler at her last known employer was returned as executed. Doc. #45 (service address sealed). On July 17, 2013, the Court issued an Order directing Defendant Winkler to show cause why a default judgment should not be entered against her due to her failure to timely file an Answer or other responsive pleading. Doc. #55. On July 29, 2013, Defendant Winkler filed a pro se Answer. Doc. #57. On July 30, 2013..
More
ORDER
J. THOMAS RAY, Magistrate Judge.
On May 16, 2013, service was on Defendant Winkler at her last known employer was returned as executed. Doc. #45 (service address sealed). On July 17, 2013, the Court issued an Order directing Defendant Winkler to show cause why a default judgment should not be entered against her due to her failure to timely file an Answer or other responsive pleading. Doc. #55.
On July 29, 2013, Defendant Winkler filed a pro se Answer. Doc. #57. On July 30, 2013, counsel for Defendant Winkler filed a Response to the Show Cause Order and a Substituted Answer. Docs. #59 and #60. In those documents, Defendant Winkler explains that the individual who accepted service on May 16, 2013, did not have the authority to do so because Defendant Winkler no longer worked for the company where service was delivered. Id. Because the March 16, 2013 service was improper, Defendant Winkler is not in default. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and 55.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant Winkler is not in default and that her Answer and Substituted Answer (Docs. #57 & #60) are timely filed.
Source: Leagle
