Case Name: UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. HORIZON PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant
Court: United States Court of International Trade
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-04
Citations: 190 F. Supp. 3d 1155
Docket Number: Slip Op. 16-43 Court No. 14-00104
Parties: UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. HORIZON PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement 3d
Volume: 190
Pages: 1155–1156

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. HORIZON PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.
Slip Op. 16-43
Court No. 14-00104
United States Court of International Trade.
May 4, 2016
Daniel B. Volk, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department- of Justice of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff United States. On the brief with him were Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal' Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Claudia Burke, Assistant Director, and Eric J. Singley,' Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief was Claire J. Lemme, Attorney, Office of Associate Chief Counsel,' U.S. Customs and Border Protection of Miami, FL.
Peter S. -Herrick, of Peter S. Herrick, P.A. of St. Petersburg, FL, and Josh Levy, Marlow, Adler, Abrams, Newman & Lewis, P.A. of Coral Gables, FL, for Defendant Horizon Products International, Inc.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Gordon, Judge:
Before the court is Plaintiff United States' Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Horizon Products International, Inc. ("Horizon") for a civil penalty in the amount of $324,540.00, plus post-judgment interest. ECF No.47. Plaintiffs motion is based on Horizon's failure to defend against Plaintiffs claim for a civil penalty. Pl.'s Mot. for" Default J. 2-10, ECF No. 47.
The procedure for obtaining a default judgment is governed by USCIT Rule 55, which is modeled after the comparable rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rule 55 procedure begins when a party fails to plead or otherwise defend in an action. USCIT R. 55(a). See generally 10A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2682 (3d ed.2015). Typically, the party seeking affirmative relief must demonstrate by affidavit or other means that the other party has failed to plead or otherwise defend the action. This, in turn, triggers the entry of default by the clerk of court. USCIT R. 55(a). Additionally, the court may, on its own, direct the clerk to enter a default against a party for failure to plead or otherwise defend. E.g., Brener Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Tormado Sys. of Am., Inc., 687 F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir.1982) ("Although Rule 55(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. refers to entry of default by the clerk, it is well-established that a default also may be entered by the court."); accord Brock v. Unique Racquetball & Health Clubs, Inc., 786 F.2d 61, 64-65 (2d Cir.1986).
Problematically, there is no entry of default on the docket. Plaintiff has not filed the required affidavit or otherwise demonstrated Horizon's failure to defend. Without the entry of default, which concludes the liability aspect of the action, the court cannot proceed to the second step, the determination of damages and the entry of judgment by default. See Brock, 786 F.2d at 65.
Notwithstanding Plaintiffs failure to comply with USCIT Rule 55(a), Horizon has indicated that it does not intend to challenge Plaintiffs request for a default judgment. Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Default J. 1, ECF No. 48. Given Horizon's stated intention not to continue to defend this action, id. and in the interest of securing "the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of this action, USCIT R. 1, the, court concludes that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion in this case and direct entry of default, see Breuer Elec., 687 F.2d at 185. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall, in accordance with USCIT Rule 55(a), enter default against Horizon for its failure to otherwise defend this action.