Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roberts v. Macallister Machinery Co. Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

December 1, 2017

DANIEL ROBERTS, Plaintiff,
v.
MACALLISTER MACHINERY CO. INC., Defendant. MACALLISTER MACHINERY CO. INC., Counter Claimant,
v.
DANIEL ROBERTS, Counter Defendant.

          ORDER ON DEFENDANT-COUNTERCLAIMAINT'S APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT (DKT. 14) TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

          SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         Defendant MacAllister Machinery Company (“MacAllister”) pleaded four counterclaims against Plaintiff Daniel Roberts (“Roberts”) by its Answer, Dkt. 11, to his Complaint. Dkt. 1. When Roberts failed to respond to the counterclaims, MacAllister applied for entry of default against Roberts. Dkt. 14. Because it appears that such entry would be set aside on Roberts's motion, as explained more fully below, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to DENY MacAllister's application. Roberts's response to the counterclaims must be filed within SEVEN DAYS from the date of this order.

         Background

         MacAllister, Roberts's former employer, answered Roberts's complaint on October 6, 2017, denying his allegations, raising affirmative defenses, and pleading counterclaims for fraud, deception, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty by Roberts's falsification of his time records at work. Answer (Dkt. 11) 21-24. Roberts's responsive pleading was due twenty-one days later, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(B), on October 27, 2017. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1). Roberts filed no response by that deadline, and still had not as of November 9, 2017, when MacAllister applied for entry of default, thirty-four days after serving its counterclaims. Spurred to action by MacAllister's application, Roberts filed an opposition within four days, on November 13, 2017. Dkt. 15. MacAllister filed a reply four days later, on November 17, 2017. Dkt. 16.

         In opposition to MacAllister's application, Roberts's counsel states that the docket entry for MacAllister's Answer “was not . . . identified as containing a Counterclaim.” Pl.'s Resp. Opp. (Dkt. 15) ¶ 4. This is false. Though MacAllister's Answer was styled in full “Defendant's Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint, ” Answer 1, which omitted specific mention of a counterclaim, the Court's docket entry, as reflected both in the notice of filing sent by e-mail to both counsel, Dkt. 14 Ex. A., and in the CM/ECF entry, Dkt. 14 Ex. B, gives clear and unambiguous notice of MacAllister's counterclaims:

         Notice of Electronic Filing

         The following transaction was entered bv White, Courtney on 10/6/2017 at 1:26 PM EDT and filed on 10/6/2017

         Case Name:ROBERTS v. MACALLISTER MACHINERY CO. INC.

         Case Number:1:17-cv-02770-SEB-TAB

         Filer: MACALLISTER MACHINERY CO. INC.

         Document Number: 11

         Docket Text:

         ANSWER to [1] Complaint, COUNTERCLAIM against DANIEL ROBERTS, filed by MACALLISTER ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.