IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

AMERICA’S HOME PLACE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

CRAIG FLORES, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

D/B/A CA FLORES CONSTRUCTION; 

AND CA FLORES CONSTRUCTION,

Defendants.

NO.1:23-CV-00196-MAC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

This case is assigned to United States District Judge Marcia Crone and referred to the 

undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings, to enter findings of fact 

and recommend disposition on case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-dispositive matters. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636; E.D. TEX. CIV. R. 72. Doc. No. 18. Currently pending before the court is 

Plaintiff, America’s Home Place, Inc.’s (“AHP”) Motion for Default Judgment. Doc. No. 15.

A. Factual and Procedural Background

On May 19, 2023, AHP filed its complaint against Defendants Craig Flores and his 

construction company CA Flores Construction (“collectively referred to as Flores”) for their 

alleged breach of his employment contract with AHP. Both Flores individually and CA Flores 

Construction were served in person on May 24, 2023. Doc. Nos. 7-8. The deadline to file an 

Answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was June 14, 2023. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(a)(1)(A)(i).

Case 1:23-cv-00196-MAC-ZJH Document 31 Filed 02/29/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:

253
2

Getting no timely response from Flores, on June 23, 2023, AHP moved for a Clerk’s Entry 

of Default. Doc. No. 11. Several days later, the Clerk entered a default against Flores and his 

construction company. Doc. No. 14. Then, on July 21, 2023, AHP filed the instant Motion for 

Default Judgment. Doc. No. 15.

Judge Crone set the motion for a hearing on September 6, 2023, and ordered Flores to show 

cause why a default judgment should not be entered. Doc. No. 17. After referring the motion 

hearing to the undersigned, Flores appeared five hours late. Minute Entries, September 6, 2023. 

Flores explained he was having difficulty defending himself because of his severe health issues 

and lack of financial resources. At the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned ordered Flores 

to answer the complaint by September 11, 2023. On the last day, Flores filed his pro se Answer to 

the complaint. Doc. No. 21. 

On September 18, 2023, the undersigned ordered the parties to conduct the Rule 26(f) 

conference. Doc. No. 23. Flores participated in the conference to the extent that he requested 

AHP’s counsel attach a letter to the conference report that described his version of the events. Doc. 

26-1. However, Flores did not appear at the Rule 16 case management conference, and the 

undersigned entered the current Scheduling Order. On January 10, 2024, AHP filed a Motion for 

Summary Judgment. Doc. No. 30. Flores has not responded, and the time for doing so has passed. 

See Local R. CV-7(e) (allowing twenty-one days to respond to a motion for summary judgment).

B. Analysis

A court may enter a default judgment when a party against whom a judgment for 

affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend the lawsuit. FED. R. CIV. P. 55. 

But the entry of a default judgment is within the trial court’s discretion. Mason v. Lister, 562 F.2d 

343, 345 (5th Cir. 1977). “A party is not entitled to a default judgment as a matter of right, even 

Case 1:23-cv-00196-MAC-ZJH Document 31 Filed 02/29/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:

254
3

where the defendant is technically in default.” Ganther v. Ingle, 75 F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir. 1996). 

The Fifth Circuit has adopted a policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits and against the 

use of default judgments. Rogers v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 167 F.3d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 

1999). “Default judgments are a drastic remedy, not favored by the Federal Rules and resorted to 

by courts only in extreme situations.” Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass’n, 874 

F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1989).

It is unquestionable that Flores failed to timely respond to AHP’s complaint and is in 

default. Yet, Flores did appear at the court’s show cause hearing to avoid a default judgment, albeit 

hours late, and he did eventually file an Answer as ordered by the court. The court also 

acknowledges that Flores is proceeding pro se, and he alleges that he is suffering from cancer. 

Doc. No. 26-1. AHP has not shown any prejudice because of a three-month delay in filing his

Answer. Importantly, AHP has filed an early motion for summary judgment which it contends 

shows there is not a genuine dispute of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law. The best course of action is to allow this case to be decided on its merits, starting with a 

decision on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, which is now under active consideration. 

Indeed, granting a default judgment opens this court to reversal for even a “slight” abuse of 

discretion. Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 15) 

should be denied.

C. Objections

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), each party to this action has the right to file objections to 

this report and recommendation. Objections to this report must (1) be in writing, (2) specifically 

identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, and (3) be served and filed 

Case 1:23-cv-00196-MAC-ZJH Document 31 Filed 02/29/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:

255
4

within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). A party who objects to this report is entitled to a de novo

determination by the United States District Judge of those proposed findings and recommendations 

to which a specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); FED. R. CIV. P.

72(b)(3). 

A party’s failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy 

of this report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States District 

Judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-

77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such findings 

of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996).

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 29th day of February, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00196-MAC-ZJH Document 31 Filed 02/29/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:

256