How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Daniel Solutions Your Own Question
Daniel Solutions
Daniel Solutions, Lawyer (JD)
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 9934
Experience:  Practing General Attorney,
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Daniel Solutions is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

When a U.S. District Court states in an ORDER that a Default

Resolved Question:

When a U.S. District Court states in an ORDER that a Default Judgment was entered in favor of a Plaintiff and it never actually was entered into the record and no evidentary hearing was ever held (only the Clerk's Entry of Default was entered and for a period of over four months to boot), while at the same time denies a Plaintiff's Motion(s) for Default Judgment (three different motions for the judgment) via the same ORDER, is it an abuse of discretion in lieu of such determination?
Submitted: 6 years ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  Daniel Solutions replied 6 years ago.
Are you seeking a second opinion or was this just a duplicate question of the one I answered?
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Greetings, and I appreciate your timely responses to my inquiries and your aid and assistance thus far...No second opinion desired here...only clarification as to whether the U.S. District Court can be held accountable for abuse of discretion as Plaintiff had filed three (3) Motions for Default Judgment after Clerk's Entry of Default had been on docket for over four months; and then low and behold an ORDER was issued stating that Plaintiff had a DJ entered in (for which never occurred in said action) while at same time denied all three (3) motions for DJ...kind of seems odd here when a Federal Court states that a DJ had been entered in favor of the Plaintiff and then in the same ORDER denies Plaintiff's three (3) motions for DJ while citing ONE (1) case law in ORDER to add fruition for the decision = BTW in that ONE (1) case law used, a DJ had been entered in, something for which has never occurred in said action in question...TY for your time and efforts...
Expert:  Daniel Solutions replied 6 years ago.
No problem. I dont know if I can present an answer in a different way to help you so I will opt out of this question so perhaps another attorney can assist you further.
Do not respond to this post because that will delay someone helping you.
Have a good day.
Daniel Solutions and 8 other Legal Specialists are ready to help you