Opinion
24 Civ. 5718 (JHR) (GS)
09-13-2024
DUREY DAMION HOUSEN, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INC. and JOHN W. GAMBLE, C.F.O., Defendants.
ORDER
GARY STEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the Court may extend a party's time to make a filing where good cause is shown for such a request. Here, the docket reflects that Equifax Inc.'s (“Equifax”) response to Plaintiff's Complaint was due on September 11, 2024. (Dkt. No. 7). Equifax made its request for an extension prior to that deadline, and represented that it was seeking such an extension, in part, to try and resolve this matter. (Dkt. No. 10). Thus, the Court extended Equifax's time to answer upon such a showing of good cause. Therefore, Equifax is not in default in this matter.
Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is brought against Defendant John W. Gamble, the docket does not reflect that Mr. Gamble has been properly served in this matter (See Dkt. No. 7 (proof of service on Equifax only)). “Default judgment cannot . . . be entered against a defendant who was not properly served and over whom, therefore, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction.” Vargas v. Dipilato, No. 21 Civ. 3884 (ER), 2023 WL 6122937, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2023).
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff is reminded that, in the future, he may also make timely requests for extensions of time if needed, and that such requests will not put him in default.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Docket Number 12.
SO ORDERED.