govinfo:USCOURTS-gand-1_25-cv-03930-0

1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
RICKY R. FRANKLIN, 
Plaintiff, 
 
Civil Action No.  
1:25-cv-03930-SDG v.  
MENS USA LLC doing business as MENSUSA.COM, 
Defendant. 
 
 
OPINION AND ORDER  
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff  Ricky R. Franklin’s motion for 
default judgment [ECF 7] and Defendant Mens USA LLC’s motion for an extension 
of time to respond to the motion, as well as a motion to set aside the Clerk’s entry 
of default [ECF 11]. For the following reasons, P laintiff’s motion for default 
judgment is DENIED and Defendant’s motions are GRANTED. The Clerk’s entry 
of default shall be vacated. 
I.  Background 
Franklin initiated his original case against Classic Firearms  LLC and Mens 
USA on September 3, 2024.1 Franklin filed a proof of service indicating that Mens 
USA was served with process on September 5.2 Mens USA did not respond to the 
 
1  Franklin v. Classic Firearms LLC , Case No. 1:24-cv -03922-SDG (the 3922 Case), 
ECF 1.  
2  Id., ECF 5.  
Case 1:25-cv-03930-SDG     Document 17     Filed 03/31/26     Page 1 of 5
2 
Complaint, so the Clerk entered default against it on April 16, 2025. 3 Thereafter, 
the Court directed that the claims against Mens USA be severed and opened as a 
new case (i.e., the instant action). On August 1, Franklin moved for a default 
judgment against Mens USA. 4 Ashkan Mashhadian, the owner of Mens USA, 
purported to file a response to that motion on behalf of the company denying the 
allegations in the Complaint.5  
Since a  corporate entity may only appear in court through an attorney , 
Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th  Cir. 1985) (“The rule is well 
established that a corporation is an artificial entity that can act only through 
agents, cannot appear pro se, and must be represented by counsel.”), on February 
10, 2026, the Court ordered Mens USA to cause counsel to appear on its behalf and 
to respond to the default judgment motion no later than February 27.
6 Counsel 
appeared specially on behalf of Mens USA, but not until March 10.7  
Three days later, on March 13, Mens USA filed a motion for an extension of 
time to respond to Franklin’s  motion for default judgment and to set aside the 
 
3  Id., Apr. 16, 2025 D.E.  
4  Franklin v. Mens USA LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03930-SDG (the 3930 Case), ECF 7. 
5  Id., ECF 8.  
6  Id., ECF 9. 
7  Id., ECF 10.  
Case 1:25-cv-03930-SDG     Document 17     Filed 03/31/26     Page 2 of 5
3 
Clerk’s entry of default, asserting that it had not been properly served.8 Although 
the proof of service filed by Franklin indicates  that service was effected by 
personally serving Mashhadian as the company’s registered agent,9 Mashhadian 
attests that the papers were actually delivered to his fathe r, who is not an agent 
authorized to accept service for Mens USA. 10 Franklin did not respond to this 
motion. 
II. Discussion 
A. Delay 
The Court may extend a party’s time to comply with a deadline after the 
deadline has run, if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. 
P. 6(b)(1)(B). Here, Mens USA explains its delay by asserting that it did not receive 
the February 10 order until February 23, 2026. Thereafter, the company (located in 
California) had difficulty retaining Georgia counsel. I t ultimately engaged an 
attorney on March 9, who promptly filed a notice of special appearance. 11  
The Court is satisfied with this explanation and finds that Mens USA’s delay 
was the result of excusable neglect. Accordingly, the deadline in the February 10 
 
8  Id., ECF 11. 
9  3922 Case, ECF 5. 
10  3930 Case, ECF 11, at 4–5; id. at 11, ¶¶ 3–7.  
11  ECF 10; ECF 11, at 1–4. 
 
Case 1:25-cv-03930-SDG     Document 17     Filed 03/31/26     Page 3 of 5
4 
order is extended nunc pro tunc through March 13, 2026, and the Court treats Mens 
USA’s response to the motion for default judgment as having been timely filed. 
B. Default 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 governs default judgments. When a defendant “has failed 
to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, 
the clerk must enter the party ’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Default judgments 
are generally entered by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). But the Court may not 
enter judgment against a party that was never served with process. Fortson v. Best 
Rate Funding, Corp., 602 F. App’x 479, 481 (11th Cir. 2015) (“Before judgment may 
be entered against a defendant, the defendant must have been served properly or 
have waived service of process.”); Worldstar Commc ’ns Corp. v. Feltman (In re 
Worldwide Web Sys., Inc.), 328 F.3d 1291, 1299 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Generally, where 
service of process is insufficient, the court has no power to render judgment and 
the judgment is void. ”) (citations omitted); J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. K. Christopher 
Edwards & Co., Civ. A. No. 1:15-cv-3206-AT, 2016 WL 9185142, at *1 (N.D. Ga. May 
13, 2016) (declining to grant a motion for default judgment where it was unclear 
that the defendant had been properly served ). Because there is a valid factual 
dispute about whether service of process on Mens  USA was proper ly effected , 
Franklin is not entitled to a default judgment. The Clerk’s entry of default shall be 
vacated. 
Case 1:25-cv-03930-SDG     Document 17     Filed 03/31/26     Page 4 of 5
5 
III. Conclusion 
Mens USA’s motion [ECF 11] for an extension of time to respond to 
Franklin’s motion for default judgment is GRANTED nunc pro tunc, and its motion 
to set aside the C lerk’s entry of default is also GRANTED. The Clerk’s entry of 
default against Mens USA [July 15, 2025 D.E.] is VACATED. Franklin’s motion for 
default judgment [ECF 7] is DENIED.  
Within 14 days after entry of this Order, Mens USA is DIRECTED to file a 
response to the complaint, either by answer or motion. The answer or motion may 
preserve or raise improper service of process as a defense . Within 30 days after 
entry of this Order, the parties shall file their Joint Preliminary Report and 
Discovery Plan. 
SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2026.  
 
 
 
  Steven D. Grimberg 
United States District Judge 
 
Case 1:25-cv-03930-SDG     Document 17     Filed 03/31/26     Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight