Filed: Jul. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 18, 2016
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT RE IRICO ENTITIES JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . On June 28, 2016, the Court ordered any plaintiff in this consolidated MDL with claims against defendants Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd. and Irico Group Corporation (the "Irico Entities") to advise the Court in writing by July 5, 2016 of the following: (1) the date on which it filed its operative claims against the Irico Entities; (2) whether the Irico Entities have been served with those cla
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT RE IRICO ENTITIES JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . On June 28, 2016, the Court ordered any plaintiff in this consolidated MDL with claims against defendants Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd. and Irico Group Corporation (the "Irico Entities") to advise the Court in writing by July 5, 2016 of the following: (1) the date on which it filed its operative claims against the Irico Entities; (2) whether the Irico Entities have been served with those clai..
More
ORDER REQUIRING APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT RE IRICO ENTITIES
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
On June 28, 2016, the Court ordered any plaintiff in this consolidated MDL with claims against defendants Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd. and Irico Group Corporation (the "Irico Entities") to advise the Court in writing by July 5, 2016 of the following: (1) the date on which it filed its operative claims against the Irico Entities; (2) whether the Irico Entities have been served with those claims; and (3) whether the Irico Entities have answered those claims. ECF No. 4694. If the answer to the third question was negative, the filing party was ordered to show cause why it had not requested entry of default. Id.
On July 5, 2016, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs") filed a response, indicating that they had filed and served claims against the Irico Entities, and that the Irico Entities had not answered those claims, but that the IPPs had not sought entry of default. ECF No. 4076. They stated that entry of default would have been premature because the damages to be sought from the Irico Entities could not be known until the conclusion of the litigation against other defendants, and that entry of default would have prejudiced the IPPs.
The Court concludes that there is no reason the IPPs cannot seek entry of default against the Irico Entities now. The IPPs first argument conflates entry of default with entry of default judgment. Id. at 3. "The two concepts are distinct and must be treated separately." United States v. Topeka Livestock Auction, Inc., 392 F.Supp. 944, 950 (N.D. Ind. 1975). The first is a ministerial act by the clerk of the court once a party has satisfied the requirements of Rule 55(a); the second usually requires (and in this case will require) action by the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). "Damages must be fixed before an entry of default can become a default judgment[.]" 10A Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2682 (3d ed. 1998) (footnotes omitted). In any event, now that the IPP class settlement has been approved, it is time for the IPPs to reduce their remaining claims to judgment. The IPPs' second argument relies on authority from another district that does not apply here. Id. (citing S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 55-1).
The IPPs are ordered to file a request for entry of default judgment within ten days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
