14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 383a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Default — Where insurer who entered notice of appearance but did not file response has been provided with notice that medical provider is seeking default, yet insurer has continued to fail to file response, default is entered against insurer
PHYSICIAN’S FIRST CHOICE INTERPRETATION, INC., (a/a/o Brenda Rosario), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 07-223 COCE 53. February 7, 2007. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Amir Fleischer, Fort Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Johane Altenor, Coral Gables, for Defendant.
[Editor’s note: Order denying motion to set aside default at 14 Fla. L. Weekly 569a]
ORDER OF DEFAULT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default, and the Court’s having reviewed the Motion and entire Court file; reviewed the relevant legal authorities; and been sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
Background: This action was filed on January 2, 2007. The Defendant was served on January 10, 2007. On January 18, 2007, the Defendant filed a Notice of Appearance through counsel. As of today, the Defendant has not filed a responsive pleading.
On January 30, 2007, the Plaintiff served its Motion for Entry of Default, providing notice to Defendant’s counsel that it was seeking a default. The Court has provided the Defendant a reasonable amount of time to respond to the Motion for Default, but the Defendant has continued to fail to file a response.
Conclusions of Law: By failing to file a response in this action, the Plaintiff is entitled to a default. By filing a Notice of Appearance, the Defendant was entitled to notice when the Plaintiff sought a default. The Plaintiff did so. Nevertheless, the Defendant has continued to fail to file the required pleading. A Notice of Appearance is not sufficient to avoid entry of a default. Additionally, by the Plaintiff’s serving its Motion, the Defendant has been provided a de facto extension to respond, but has continued to fail to do so. Moreover, the Court has delayed entry of this Order to provide the Defendant a reasonable amount of time to respond to the Motion for Default, to no avail. As a result, the Plaintiff is entitled to a default, and no hearing is required. See Picchi v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, 521 So.2d 1090, 1090-91 (Fla. 1988); Mondeja v. Cuevas, 583 So.2d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Rule 1.500(b), Fla. R. Civ. P. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default is hereby GRANTED, and a Default is hereby entered against the Defendant.
