UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

MARK ROMERO, )

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) 2:13-cv-00426

THE REFINERY BAR AND GRILL, INC., )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Romero filed his Complaint on November 21, 2013, and served it and a

summons on Defendant Refinery Bar and Grill on January 23, 2014 after Refinery failed to

waive service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Refinery’s responsive pleading was due February

13, 2014. When Refinery blew that deadline, Romero filed a “Motion for Default” on February

18, 2014, seeking a default judgment. (Docket Entry 6 at ¶ 8.) That apparently lit a fire under

Refinery, and on February 19, 2014 its counsel filed an appearance and a request for an

extension of time to file an answer. (DE 9, 10.)

Had default been entered, which it wasn’t, Refinery’s spartan motion would probably be

inadequate to meet the requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) for setting aside an entry of

default. See, e.g., Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 630-31 (7th Cir. 2009).

However, the default judgment that Romero seeks is premature at this point because Fed. R. Civ.

P. 55(a) requires the entry of default by the Clerk of Court before default judgment can be sought

or granted, and that hasn’t happened. See, e.g., In re Catt, 368 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir. 2004)

(“There are two stages in a default proceeding: the establishment of the default, and the actual

entry of a default judgment. Once the default is established, and thus liability, the plaintiff still

must establish his entitlement to the relief he seeks.”). To the extent that Romero’s motion can

be construed as a motion for both entry of default and then default judgment, granting that would

case 2:13-cv-00426-PPS-PRC document 11 filed 02/20/14 page 1 of 3
be premature at this point as well. Given (1) that Refinery has now indicated its intent to file a

responsive pleading and its motion came one court day after the motion for default and three

court days after the deadline to answer, (2) this Circuit’s preference for determining cases on the

merits rather than through default, Cracco, 559 F.3d at 631, and (3) the fact that Romero has not

been prejudiced by this slight delay at this early stage in the case, entry of default and default

judgment are inappropriate at this point. Romero’s “Motion for Default” (DE 6) is therefore

DENIED.

Refinery’s counsel has asked for an extension of 30 days to file a responsive pleading.

Counsel represents that Refinery has an undisclosed meritorious defense and that Counsel was

retained as of February 19, 2014, so needs additional time to consult with Refinery about its

answer. This is Refinery’s first filing in the case, so this is its first request for an extension, and

30 days is a reasonable period of time to prepare a responsive pleading. Refinery’s request for an

extension to and including March 21, 2014 to file its answer (DE 10) is therefore GRANTED.

Refinery is also CAUTIONED that the deadlines and other rules in the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of this District are not merely advisory, and their continued

disregard will not be without consequence.

Due to Refinery’s failure to waive service of the complaint and summons, Romero also

moved for fees and expenses to cover service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). (DE 7.) I must

impose those expenses on Refinery if the failure to waive service was done without good cause.

Refinery has not yet addressed whether it had good cause for its failure to return the waiver of

service, so it is ORDERED to do so in a response filed concurrently with its answer. Romero

may then file a reply if he chooses.

2

case 2:13-cv-00426-PPS-PRC document 11 filed 02/20/14 page 2 of 3
Romero also moved for a hearing on its motions for default and for the fees and expenses

for service. (DE 8.) Given that the motion for default is denied and the motion for fees and

expenses of service has not yet been fully briefed, the motion for a hearing (DE 8) is DENIED.

Romero may request oral argument on his motion for service fees and expenses after the motion

is fully briefed, should he still feel that a hearing is necessary given the briefing.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court:

(1) DENIES Romero’s Motion for Default (DE 6);

(2) GRANTS Refinery’s motion for an extension to March 21, 2014 (DE 10);

(3) CAUTIONS Refinery to follow Court rules and deadlines;

(4) ORDERS Refinery to respond to Romero’s motion for service fees and expenses (DE

7) by March 21, 2014; and

(5) DENIES Romero’s motion for a hearing on its motions for default and services fees

and expenses (DE 8).

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: February 20, 2014

/s/ Philip P. Simon 

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

case 2:13-cv-00426-PPS-PRC document 11 filed 02/20/14 page 3 of 3