Julia Davis-Harris v. Makower Abbate Guerra Wegner & Vollmer, PLLC, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan overruled the plaintiff’s objections to orders setting aside certain defaults and accepted and adopted two magistrate judge reports and recommendations. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Ajax and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, concluding that the operative complaint was procedurally deficient and that the claims in the purported second amended complaint also failed on the merits.

Holdings

1. A general objection that does not identify a particular portion of the magistrate judge's order or the basis for the objection does not satisfy the governing objection requirements, and the order setting aside the Farmers defendants' defaults was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
2. Default judgment cannot be entered when the underlying entry of default has already been set aside, because entry of default is a prerequisite to default judgment.
3. Objections to a magistrate judge's dispositive report and recommendation must identify the challenged portion and state the basis for the objection; vague, conclusory, and nonresponsive objections are insufficient.
4. Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate when a plaintiff has been given multiple opportunities to correct a deficient pleading under Rule 8 but persists in noncompliance with the pleading requirements and court orders.
5. The plaintiff failed to state viable claims against the Makower, Farmers, Vandeveer, and Ajax defendants, and the motions to dismiss were properly granted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's order setting aside entries of default satisfied the applicable timeliness and specificity requirements.
2. Whether default judgment could be entered against Ajax after the entry of default had been set aside.
3. Whether the plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's dispositive report and recommendation were sufficiently specific under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d)(1).
4. Whether the operative first amended complaint, and alternatively the allegations in the improperly filed purported second amended complaint, stated claims for relief against the Makower, Farmers, Vandeveer, and Ajax defendants.
5. Whether the claims for wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, fraud, slander of title, RESPA violations, and negligence/Lanham Act violations were legally and factually sufficient.

Disposition

other