DEPALMA v. KERNS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION RACHEL DEPALMA, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-91 (MTT) ) SAMANTHA KERNS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ ) ORDER Plaintiff Rachel DePalma filed this action against Defendants Samantha Kerns, Laurinda Kirk, and Tracy Korslund on March 2, 2022. Doc. 1. In her complaint, DePalma contends the defendants are jointly and several liable for defamation, false light, and civil conspiracy based on the defendants’ publication of false and defamatory statements on TikTok and Instagram. Id. at 14-18. Defendants Kerns and Kirk timely filed an answer and are defending the case. Docs. 7; 13. Defendant Korslund, however, did not and is now in default. Doc. 14. DePalma now moves for default judgment against Korslund. Doc. 15.

Generally speaking, a Court may enter a default judgment against a party for failure to plead or otherwise defend a case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. However, “in cases involving multiple defendants, some of whom are not in default, courts should withhold granting a default judgment until the trial of the action on the merits against the remaining defendants.” Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 378 F. Supp. 3d 1213, 1221 (M.D. Ga. 2019); see also Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872) (stating that “a final decree on the merits against the defaulting defendant alone, pending the continuance of the cause [against the other defendants], would be incongruous and illegal”); Gulf Coast Fans v. Midwest Electronics Importers, Inc., 740 F.2d 1499, 1512 (11th Cir. 1984) (stating that it is “sound policy” that “judgment should not be entered against a defaulting defendant if the other [similarly situated or jointly liable] defendant prevails on the merits.”). Accordingly, DePalma’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 15) is DENIED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED, this 13th day of July, 2022.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT