Stewart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

OCALA DIVISION

SHANNON STEWART,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 5:25-cv-667-SPC-PRL

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY and STATE FARM

MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants.

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Clerk’s Default

as to Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Doc. 34) and

Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Extension of

Time to File Defendant’s Answer (Doc. 36).

On July 21, 2026, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Clerk’s

Default against Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State

Farm”) (Doc. 32) because the Court could not determine whether Plaintiff properly effected

service of process on State Farm given the lack of information and requisite detail in Plaintiff’s

motion. (Doc. 33). On July 22, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Amended Motion for Clerk’s

Default, seeking entry of clerk’s default against State Farm for their failure to respond to the

second amended complaint or otherwise defend the action. (Doc. 34). The following day, on

July 23, 2026, David Fifner, Esq. of Gobel Flakes, LLC, filed a Notice of Appearance as

counsel of record for State Farm (Doc. 35), and State Farm filed the instant Motion for

Extension of Time to File Defendant’s Answer, requesting a brief extension of time to respond

to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint due to “excusable neglect” by counsel who “was

unaware of his lapse in admission to the United States District Court, Middle District of

Florida” and has now been re-admitted to this Court (Doc. 36).1 State Farm filed its answer

and affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint on July 24, 2026. (Doc. 37).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) governs the entry of a clerk’s default, providing

that “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to

plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must

enter the party’s default.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). However, “[d]efault is to be used

sparingly” and cases should normally be adjudicated on their merits. See Mitchell v. Brown &

Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309, 1316-17 (11th Cir. 2002) (describing default

judgment as a “drastic remedy” and recognizing that courts “must respect the usual

preference that cases be heard on the merits rather than resorting to sanctions that deprive a

litigant of his day in court”) (quoting Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985)).

Given that “there is a strong policy of determining cases on their merits,” the Eleventh Circuit

“therefore view[s] defaults with disfavor.” See In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.3d 1291,

1295 (11th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); Bateh v. Colquett D. Trucking, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-926-

J-32MCR, 2011 WL 4501385, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2011) (“Courts have a longstanding

policy favoring adjudication of lawsuits on the merits, thus defaults are disfavored.”) (citation

omitted). If a defendant untimely appears in and indicates a desire to contest an action, the

1 The Court notes that State Farm’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Defendant’s

Answer (Doc. 36) fails to comply with the requirements set forth in Local Rule 3.01(g). See M.D.

Fla. Local Rule 3.01(g). State Farm is cautioned that any future filings must comply with this

Court’s Local Rules.

court can exercise its discretion and refuse to enter a default against the defendant. See Evans

v. Strayer Univ., No. CV 115-196, 2016 WL 5844857, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 3, 2016).

In this case, State Farm made an appearance through counsel (Doc. 35) and filed a

motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc. 36)

and an answer (Doc. 37). Although State Farm did not timely file its responsive pleading (see

Doc. 37), entry of default against State Farm would be improper at this early stage of the

proceedings, given State Farm’s indicated desire to defend the action and the “strong policy

of determining cases on their merits” in the Eleventh Circuit. See In re Worldwide Web Sys.,

Inc., 328 F.3d at 1295; Evans, 2016 WL 5844857, at *2 (indicating that a plaintiff would not

be able to obtain entry of default against a defendant that had appeared in the case and

attempted to defend); see also Houser v. O’Neil, No.:24-cv-00503-SGC, 2025 WL 2797162, at

*2 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 29, 2025) (explaining that “[w]here a defendant appears in an untimely

manner and indicates a desire to contest an action, an entry of default may be refused . . . on

a discretionary basis[,]” considering “a defendant’s short delay in appearing to defend against

a claim and the absence of prejudice to the plaintiff”) (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted).

Thus, under the circumstances presented here and in the interests of adjudicating this

case on the merits, the Court will accept State Farm’s untimely answer and deny Plaintiff’s

amended motion for clerk’s default. State Farm is cautioned, however, that any future

untimely filings may not be accepted.

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Clerk’s Default as to Defendant State Farm

Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Doc. 34) is DENIED.

(2) Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for

Extension of Time to File Defendant’s Answer (Doc. 36) is DENIED as moot, in

light of the filed Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 37).

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on July 27, 2026.

Sores

PHILIP R. LAMMENS

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Unrepresented Parties

-4-