Seckinger v. TransUnion LLC, CV415-310. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20160218b04
Visitors: 19
Filed: Feb. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 17, 2016
Summary: ORDER G. R. SMITH , District Judge . Thinking that defendant TransUnion LLC failed to answer his Complaint, Mallie Seckinger moves for a default judgment. Doc. 10. TransUnion, however, in fact timely answered. Doc. 8. It relied on the Court's electronic docketing software to serve Seckinger, yet it was unaware that pro se parties cannot receive E-filed notices. See id. at 8 (TransUnion's certificate of service stating that CM/ECF "will send a notice of electronic filing" to Seckinger).
Summary: ORDER G. R. SMITH , District Judge . Thinking that defendant TransUnion LLC failed to answer his Complaint, Mallie Seckinger moves for a default judgment. Doc. 10. TransUnion, however, in fact timely answered. Doc. 8. It relied on the Court's electronic docketing software to serve Seckinger, yet it was unaware that pro se parties cannot receive E-filed notices. See id. at 8 (TransUnion's certificate of service stating that CM/ECF "will send a notice of electronic filing" to Seckinger). ..
More
ORDER
G. R. SMITH, District Judge.
Thinking that defendant TransUnion LLC failed to answer his Complaint, Mallie Seckinger moves for a default judgment. Doc. 10. TransUnion, however, in fact timely answered. Doc. 8. It relied on the Court's electronic docketing software to serve Seckinger, yet it was unaware that pro se parties cannot receive E-filed notices. See id. at 8 (TransUnion's certificate of service stating that CM/ECF "will send a notice of electronic filing" to Seckinger). Regardless of its error, TransUnion is not in default, so Seckinger's motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
