Summary
ruling that the plaintiff was not entitled to default judgment because the plaintiff's claim was insufficient, and the defendant's failure to strictly comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 did not result in any prejudice
Summary of this case from Chung v. Vistana Vacation Ownership, Inc.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-4798.
July 8, 2010
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 2010, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 6) is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff's Request for Default and Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 5) is DENIED;
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Sign Judgment Under Rule 55 (Dkt. No. 7) is DENIED;
4. Plaintiff's Motions to Amend (Dkt. Nos. 10, 12 and 13) are DENIED; and
5. Plaintiff's Motions to Grant Relief in Complaint Based on 13 Counts of Misconduct and 4 Year Delay by District Based Wrong Ruling (Dkt. Nos. 9 and 11) are DENIED as MOOT.
While styled merely as "Amendment to Grant Relief" (Dkt. No. 12) and "Amendment of Rule 9(b)" (Dkt. No. 13), the Court liberally construes Plaintiff's pleadings as motions to amend his Complaint.