United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
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
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
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.
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.
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
of Electronic Filing
following transaction was entered bv White, Courtney on
10/6/2017 at 1:26 PM EDT and filed on 10/6/2017
Name:ROBERTS v. MACALLISTER MACHINERY CO. INC.
MACALLISTER MACHINERY CO. INC.
to  Complaint, COUNTERCLAIM against DANIEL ROBERTS, filed
by MACALLISTER ...