Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Paluso v. Perdue, 5:17-CV-169-TBR. (2018)

Court: District Court, W.D. Kentucky Number: infdco20180921c07 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS B. RUSSELL , Senior District Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon Motion by Plaintiff Kevan Paluso, ("Plaintiff"), for default judgment against Defendant Sonny Perdue, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, ("Defendant"). [DN 9.] For the reasons that follow, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion [DN 9.] is DENIED without prejudice. Discussion Plaintiff sued Defendant on November 3, 2017, alleging claims of (1) age discrimination; hostile
More

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon Motion by Plaintiff Kevan Paluso, ("Plaintiff"), for default judgment against Defendant Sonny Perdue, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, ("Defendant"). [DN 9.] For the reasons that follow, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion [DN 9.] is DENIED without prejudice.

Discussion

Plaintiff sued Defendant on November 3, 2017, alleging claims of (1) age discrimination; hostile work environment and retaliation; (3) constructive discharge; (4) invasion of privacy; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. [See DN 1.] To date, no appearance has been entered on behalf of Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff moved for a default judgment on February 23, 2018. [DN 4.] By Order of the Court, [DN 5], Plaintiff filed proof of service, signed on November 20, 2017, showing that a summons and copy of the complaint was sent to Defendant at his office address in Washington D.C. [See DN 6-1.] On June 15, 2018 the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for default judgment because the Plaintiff had provided no proof that a copy of the complaint and summons had been properly served upon the United States pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A)(i). [DN 7] The Plaintiff now refiles his motion for default judgment—again with no proof that United States has been properly served with a copy of the summons and/or the complaint. The Court requires more than the certificate of service filed by the Plaintiff with the instant motion. Accordingly, the Court must—again—deny Plaintiff's motion for default judgment. Plaintiff is free to refile if, and when, he can produce sufficient evidence of proper service.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion [DN 9.] is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer