Young v. D.W. Mertzke Excavating & Trucking, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Mattie G. Young
Defendant: D.W. Mertzke Excavating & Trucking, Inc. and Antonio D. Dunn
Case Number: 3:2020cv00691
Filed: July 14, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Presiding Judge: Gilbert C Sison
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 9, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 9, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER denying at this time #16 Motion for Default Judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 requires a two-step process before the entry of default judgment. A party first must seek an entry of default based on the opposing party's failure to plead. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). This means that the court must assure itself that the defendant was aware of the suit and still did not respond. After the entry of default, the plaintiff may move for default judgment under rule 55(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). When the court determines that a defendant is in default, the court accepts as true the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint. e360 Insight v. The Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594, 602 (7th Cir. 2007). "A default judgment establishes, as a matter of law, that defendants are liable to plaintiff on each cause of action in the complaint." Id. However, "even when a default judgment is warranted based on a party's failure to defend, the allegations in the complaint with respect to the amount of damages are not deemed true." Id. (quoting In re Catt, 38 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir. 2004)). Here, Plaintiff did not move for the entry of default first. Thus, the Court DENIES at this time the motion for default judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 9/9/2020. (klh)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
September 8, 2020 Filing 16 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Defendant D.W. Mertzke Excavating & Trucking, Inc. by Mattie G. Young. (Falvey, Shaun)
August 26, 2020 Filing 15 Summons Returned Unexecuted by Mattie G. Young as to Antonio D. Dunn. (Falvey, Shaun)
August 26, 2020 Filing 14 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Mattie G. Young. D.W. Mertzke Excavating & Trucking, Inc. served on 8/11/2020, answer due 9/1/2020. (Falvey, Shaun)
August 26, 2020 Filing 13 NOTICE STRIKING ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS striking #12 Return of Service Unexecuted filed by Mattie G. Young, #11 Return of Service Executed filed by Mattie G. Young. (Incorrect event selected. Select the event which most closely matches the document being filed. For this document, the correct event is "Summons Returned Executed or Summons Returned Unexecuted. E-filer is instructed to re-file using Civil>Service of Process> Summons Returned Executed or Summons Returned Unexecuted in order to properly trigger the answer due deadline.THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
August 26, 2020 Filing 12 ENTRY STRICKEN:RETURN OF SERVICE UNEXECUTED by Mattie G. Young (Falvey, Shaun) Modified on 8/26/2020 (trb).
August 26, 2020 Filing 11 ENTRY STRICKEN:RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED by Mattie G. Young on 8/11/2020. (Falvey, Shaun) Modified on 8/26/2020 (trb).
August 3, 2020 Filing 10 CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (Falvey, Shaun)
July 27, 2020 Filing 9 Summons Issued as to Antonio D. Dunn. Original document sent to attorney for plaintiff for service. (rah)
July 24, 2020 Filing 8 Summons Requested. (Attachments: #1 Summons Summons)(Falvey, Shaun)
July 24, 2020 Filing 7 Summons Returned Unexecuted as to Antonio D. Dunn. (kdw)
July 16, 2020 Filing 6 Summons Issued as to D.W. Mertzke Excavating & Trucking, Inc., Antonio D. Dunn. Originals mailed to Attorney Shaun Falvey. (lmb)
July 15, 2020 Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Shaun Falvey on behalf of Mattie G. Young (Falvey, Shaun)
July 15, 2020 Filing 4 NOTICE REGARDING FILING re #1 Complaint, filed by Mattie G. Young. Civil Cover Sheet and submitted summonses are fillable documents. Fillable documents should be converted to non-fillable PDF before filing on CM/ECF. This Notice is sent for informational purposes only. (lmb)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
July 15, 2020 Filing 3 NOTICE OF ACTION. See Local Rule 83.1(f). In all cases filed in, removed to, or transferred to this court, all attorneys, including government attorneys, shall file a written entry of appearance before addressing the court. Attorney Shaun Falvey does not have a Notice of Appearance on file in this case. (lmb)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
July 15, 2020 Filing 2 NOTICE OF INITIAL ASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE: This case has been randomly assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison pursuant to Administrative Order No. 257. The parties are advised that their consent is required if the assigned Magistrate Judge is to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including trial and final entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. As set forth in Administrative Order No. 257, each party will be required to file a Notice and Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form indicating consent or nonconsent to the jurisdiction of the assigned Magistrate Judge. If all parties do not consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction, the case will be randomly assigned to a district judge for all further proceedings and the parties cannot later consent to reassignment of the case to a magistrate judge. The parties are further advised that they are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences. Within 21 days of this Notice, the following party or parties must file the attached form indicating consent to proceed before the assigned Magistrate Judge or an affirmative declination to consent: Mattie G. Young. A link regarding the magistrate judges in this district is attached for your convenience: #http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/documents/BenefitsofConsent.pdf. All future documents must bear case number 20-691-GCS. Consent due by 8/5/2020 (lmb)
July 14, 2020 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against D.W. Mertzke Excavating & Trucking, Inc., Antonio D. Dunn ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0754-4227575.), filed by Mattie G. Young. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons Summons - Dunn, #3 Summons Summons - Mertzke)(Falvey, Shaun)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Illinois Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Young v. D.W. Mertzke Excavating & Trucking, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: D.W. Mertzke Excavating & Trucking, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Antonio D. Dunn
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mattie G. Young
Represented By: Shaun Falvey
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?