REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MAC R. MCCOY, Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the failure to show good cause by Defendants Chestelm Health Care, Inc., Evelyn Epright, and Brinton Epright ("Defendants"). On January 4, 2016, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 33) for Defendants' failure to comply with the Court's December 1, 2015 Order (Doc. 32). On December 1, 2015, this Court entered an Order allowing the Law Offices of Bohdan Neswiacheny's to withdraw as counsel for Defendants. (Doc. 32 at 1-2). The Order specified that Defendant Chestelm Health Care, Inc. was permitted thirty (30) days from the date of the Order to secure new counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance. (Doc. 32 at 2 ¶ 4). The Court warned that if Defendant Chestelm Health Care, Inc. failed to have new counsel file a notice of appearance, the Court would recommend that a default be entered against Defendant. (Id.). Additionally, the Court allowed Defendants Evelyn Epright and Brinton Epright thirty (30) days from the date of the Court's Order to secure new counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance, or to notify the Court of their intent to proceed pro se. (Id. at 3 ¶ 5). The Court indicated that if Defendants Evelyn Epright and Brinton Epright failed to have new counsel file a notice of appearance, or to notify the Court of their intent to proceed pro se, the Court would recommend that a default be entered against them. (Id.).

Defendants Chestelm Health Care, Inc., Evelyn Epright, and Brinton Epright all failed to notify the Court as required by the December 1, 2015 Order. Thus, the Court ordered Defendants Chestelm Health Care, Inc., Evelyn Epright, and Brinton Epright to show good cause for their failure to comply with the Court's December 1, 2015 Order (Doc. 32) within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. 33 at 2 ¶ 1). The Court warned that failure to show good cause within this time frame would necessitate that the Court recommend that default be entered against Defendants. (Id. at ¶ 2). At this time, Defendants have not responded to the Court's Show Cause Order (Doc. 33).

While defaults are disfavored because of the strong policy of determining cases on their merits, Claytor v. Mojo Grill and Catering Co. of Beleview, LLC, No. 5:14-cv-411-Oc-30PRL, 2015 WL 1538111, at *1 (M.D. Fla. April 7, 2015) (citing Fla. Physician's Ins. Co. v. Ehlers, 8 F.3d 780, 783 (11th Cir. 1993)), the Court has the authority to enter defaults and default judgments "`for failure . . . to comply with its orders or rules of procedure.'" Suarez v. Don Pan Tampa, No. 8:11-cv-2295-T-33TGW, 2011 WL 6822191, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2011) (quoting Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985)). In this case, Defendants failed to comply with two Court Orders (Docs. 32 and 33). Based upon Defendants failure to comply, the Court recommends that defaults be entered against Defendants. Accordingly,

IT IS RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED:

That the Clerk of Court be directed to enter defaults against Defendants Chestelm Health Care, Inc., Evelyn Epright, and Brinton Epright for failure to comply with the Court's Orders.

Respectfully recommended in Chambers in Ft. Myers, Florida on January 28, 2016.

NOTICE TO PARTIES

A party has fourteen days from this date to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation's factual findings and legal conclusions. A party's failure to file written objections waives that party's right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or legal conclusion the district judge adopts from the Report and Recommendation. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.