Filed: May 11, 2016
Latest Update: May 11, 2016
Summary: Order Adopting in Part Report and Recommendation, Entering Default against Stakool, and Dismissing Stakool's Counterclaims with Prejudice [ECF No. 92] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . On February 26, 2016, Magistrate Judge Koppe ordered defendant and counter-claimant Stakool Inc. to retain counsel and enter a notice of appearance by March 25, 2016. 1 When Stakool failed to comply, Magistrate Judge Koppe ordered Stakool to show cause why case-dispositive sanctions should not be entered
Summary: Order Adopting in Part Report and Recommendation, Entering Default against Stakool, and Dismissing Stakool's Counterclaims with Prejudice [ECF No. 92] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . On February 26, 2016, Magistrate Judge Koppe ordered defendant and counter-claimant Stakool Inc. to retain counsel and enter a notice of appearance by March 25, 2016. 1 When Stakool failed to comply, Magistrate Judge Koppe ordered Stakool to show cause why case-dispositive sanctions should not be entered ..
More
Order Adopting in Part Report and Recommendation, Entering Default against Stakool, and Dismissing Stakool's Counterclaims with Prejudice [ECF No. 92]
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.
On February 26, 2016, Magistrate Judge Koppe ordered defendant and counter-claimant Stakool Inc. to retain counsel and enter a notice of appearance by March 25, 2016.1 When Stakool failed to comply, Magistrate Judge Koppe ordered Stakool to show cause why case-dispositive sanctions should not be entered against it,2 and expressly warned that failure to respond to that order would result in a recommendation of dismissal.3 The deadline to respond expired, and Stakool did not appear or respond to the magistrate judge's show-cause order.
On April 15, 2016, Magistrate Judge Koppe issued a report recommending that I (1) enter default judgment against Stakool and (2) dismiss Stakool's counterclaims with prejudice.4 She reasoned that "[s]anctions less drastic than default judgment and dismissal are unavailable because Stakool has willfully refused to comply with multiple court orders despite the warning that dismissal may result."5 Objections to the report and recommendation were due by May 2, 2016, and Stakool has not filed an objection or requested an extension to do so.6
"[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation unless objections are filed."7 I find that Stakool's failure to object to the report and recommendation combined with its repeated refusals to comply with this court's orders justify a Clerk's entry of default and dismissal sanctions. I therefore adopt in part Magistrate Judge Koppe's report and recommendation, enter default against Stakool, and dismiss Stakool's counterclaims with prejudice. But because plaintiffs must prove damages, I decline to enter default judgment at this time. And because defaults have now been entered against all defendants,8 the time is ripe for plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment.
Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge Koppe's report and recommendation [ECF No. 92] is ADOPTED in part; the Clerk of Court is instructed to enter default against Stakool, and Stakool's counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiffs are instructed to file a motion for default judgment by May 20, 2016.
