Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00310/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00310-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AM/NS CALVERT LLC, etc., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 14-0310-WS-B

 )

PSL, LTD., )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

The plaintiff has filed an application for entry of default. (Doc. 11). 

“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed 

to plead or otherwise defend,” it is subject to entry of default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

55(a). But a defendant is under no obligation to plead or otherwise defend until 

and unless it is “served with the summons and complaint.” Id. Rule 

12(a)(1)(A)(i); accord Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wright, 261 Fed. 

Appx. 259, 261 (11th Cir. 2008). Thus, “[b]efore a default can be entered, ... the 

party must have been effectively served with process.” 10 Charles Alan Wright & 

Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2682 at 14 (3rd ed. 1998). And 

when service of process is at issue, “it [i]s proper for the court rather than the clerk 

to consider [the plaintiff’s] request” for entry of default. Sandoval v. Bluegrass 

Regional Mental Health – Mental Retardation Board, 2000 WL 1257040 at *5 

(6th Cir. 2000). 

The defendant is an Indian corporation with its principal place of business 

in Mumbai. (Doc. 1, ¶ 3). The plaintiff attempted service pursuant to the Hague 

Convention. (Doc. 7). This is a relatively complex form of service, and the Court 

cannot determine from the plaintiff’s one-sentence treatment of the issue, (Doc. 

Case 1:14-cv-00310-WS-B Document 12 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 2
2

11-1, ¶ 3), that its requirements have been met.1 Accordingly, the application for 

entry of default, construed as a motion for such relief, is denied without prejudice 

to the plaintiff’s ability to file a properly supported motion.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2015.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 The plaintiff neither identifies the requirements of service under the Hague 

Convention nor explains how the documents to which it cites, (Doc. 8), establish that 

those requirements have been satisfied.

Case 1:14-cv-00310-WS-B Document 12 Filed 02/02/15 Page 2 of 2