Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_05-cv-00432/USCOURTS-alnd-4_05-cv-00432-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

Also pending before the court is Plaintiff’s January 25, 2006 Motion for Summary 1

Judgment against Defendant Brian Allen Butler (Doc. # 23), which is unopposed. Because Plaintiff

has now filed a motion for default judgment against Butler, which is the appropriate vehicle given

the Clerk’s prior entry of default against Butler, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is moot.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

COTTON STATES MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN ALLEN BUTLER, et al.,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No. 4:05-cv-0432-RDP

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has before it Plaintiff Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company’s (“Cotton States”)

Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Brian Allen Butler (“Butler”) (Doc. # 27). The 1

court held a status conference in this case on April 12, 2006. 

This action was commenced on February 28, 2005, by the filing of the complaint (Doc. # 1),

and a copy of the summons and complaint was served on Butler on March 29, 2005, by certified

mail. (Doc. # 5). Butler failed to appear or otherwise to respond to the allegations of Plaintiff’s

complaint for declaratory judgment. In response to Plaintiff’s June 21, 2005 motion for entry of

default (Doc. # 17), default was entered against Butler by the Clerk of Court on June 24, 2005. (Doc.

# 18). 

Plaintiff now seeks a Rule 55(b) default judgment against Butler in the form of a declaration

that, under Homeowners’ Policy No. AFP 3326832 issued to Deborah Butler on February 25, 2003,

FILED

 2006 Apr-17 AM 09:42

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:05-cv-00432-RDP Document 28 Filed 04/17/06 Page 1 of 3
Although Plaintiff’s complaint also makes claims against “Allen Burt Butler,” who has

2

appeared and is proceeding pro se, no counsel has entered an appearance for Brian Allen Butler, and

he has not appeared pro se. The complaint alleges that Brian Allen Butler is incarcerated in the

Marshall County, Alabama jail. (Doc. # 1, at 1). 

2

Cotton States is not obligated to defend nor indemnify Brian Allen Butler in the underlying action,

Brenda Barnes, et al. v. Brian Alan Butler, et al., CV-04-416, pending in the Circuit Court of

Marshall County, Alabama. (Doc. # 27). Rule 55 (b) states in relevant part:

(b) [Default] Judgment. Judgment by default may be entered as follows: 

...

(2) By the Court. In all other cases the party entitled to a judgment by default shall

apply to the court therefor; but no judgment by default shall be entered against an

infant or incompetent person unless represented in the action by a general guardian,

committee, conservator, or other such representative who has appeared therein. If the

party against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, the

party (or, if appearing by representative, the party’s representative) shall be served

with written notice of the application for judgment at least 3 days prior to the hearing

on such application. If, in order to enable the court to enter judgment or to carry it

into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages

or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of

any other matter, the court may conduct such hearings or order such references as it

deems necessary and proper and shall accord a right of trial by jury to the parties

when and as required by any statute of the United States.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 55.

The court finds that all of the requirements of Rule 55(b)(2) are satisfied in this case.

Although the complaint avers that Butler is under the age of 19 (Doc. # 1, at 1), Plaintiff’s motion

for default judgment makes clear that Defendant Butler is not an infant at this time (and clarifies that

he was not an infant at the time the complaint was filed). (Doc. # 27, at 2). Therefore, the

requirement that an infant be represented by a general guardian, committee, conservator, or other

such representative who has appeared prior to entry of a default judgment is not applicable here. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Moreover, Butler has not appeared in this action, and therefore, the court 2

Case 4:05-cv-00432-RDP Document 28 Filed 04/17/06 Page 2 of 3
 The Eleventh Circuit has noted that, in any event, “[a]n evidentiary hearing is not a per se 3

requirement; indeed, Rule 55(b)(2) speaks of evidentiary hearings in a permissive tone.” S.E.C. v.

Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225, 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005)(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2) (“[T]he court may

conduct such hearings . . . .”). 

3

is not required to provide him with written notice of Plaintiff’s application for judgment prior to

entering default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Finally, because Plaintiff seeks only a

declaratory judgment and not damages, “all essential evidence is already of record,” and an

evidentiary hearing is not required. S.E.C. v. First Fin. Group of Tex., Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 669 (5th

Cir.1981) (“Rule 55(b)(2) does not require the district court to hold either an evidentiary hearing or

oral argument on a motion for a default judgment.”) (citing Thomas v. United States, 531 F.2d 746,

748 (5th Cir.1976) (“Taxpayer’s first contention that the district court should have held an

evidentiary hearing and/or oral argument on the motion is without merit. All the essential facts were

of record.”)).3

Accordingly, the court will, by separate order, grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment

(Doc. # 11) and enter a default judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Butler that is consistent

with this Memorandum Opinion. 

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of April, 2006.

___________________________________

R. DAVID PROCTOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:05-cv-00432-RDP Document 28 Filed 04/17/06 Page 3 of 3