In re Murra

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that typically the District Court should not enter default 5 || judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) against some defendants if other defendants are || defending the same allegations/claims
• explaining that Frow provides that “if an action against the answering defendants is decided in their favor, then the action should be dismissed against both answering and defaulting defendants”
• stating that, in the context of a bankruptcy case concerning the perfection of security interests, Frow “appl[ies] to defendants who are similarly situated, even if not jointly and severally liable”
• explaining that in a multi-defendant case, the preferred practice is for the court to refrain from granting default judgment against defaulting defendants until the claims can be adjudicated on the merits against non-defaulting defendants
• summarizing the holding of Frow v. De 3 La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872)
• reversing on appeal entry of default judgment to avoid “incongruous” result

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).