Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AARON WALKER,
Plaintiff
v.
As of this date, the Defendants have filed no Answer to the Plaintiffs Fourth
November 23, 2015. Accordingly, under Md. Rule 2-321(a) their Answer would have ordinarily
been due on or about December 28, 2015.1
3.
Dismiss pursuant to Md. Rule 2-322(b)(2) (Dkt. No. 88). Under Md. Rule 2-321(c), filing that
Motion to Dismiss automatically suspended the time to file their Answer until fifteen days after
the entry of the courts order on their motion.
The Defendants would have ordinarily benefitted from the holiday, giving them a few more
days to respond.
4.
This Court partially granted and partially denied the Defendants Motion on
March 10, 2016 (Dkt. No. 107). The formal order granting dismissal of the malicious use of
process claim, but denying the motion to dismiss on the malicious prosecution claim was issued
on March 21, 2016 (Dkt. No. 116).
5.
If this Court considers its order on the motion to dismiss to have been entered on
March 10, 2016, it has been twenty-eight days since the order was entered. If this Court
considers its order on the motion to dismiss to have been entered on March 21, 2015, then it has
been seventeen days. In either case, the Defendants have failed to file their answer within fifteen
days of this Courts order on their Motion to Dismiss as required by Md. Rule 2-321(c).
6.
Accordingly, both Defendants are now in default and the Plaintiff is entitled to
Default Judgment.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, this Court should enter a default judgment as to liability
against both Defendants, set a hearing to determine damages and whether an injunction should
issue, and provide any other relief that is just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,