First Commonwealth Bank v. Greater Services CIL LLC et al

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
FIRST COMMONWEALTH BANK, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
V. 	§ 	No. 3:24-cv-2985-S
§
GREATER SERVICES CIL LLC,
GREATER SERVICES DFW LLC,
GREATER SERVICES, INC., and
KYLE J. CAMPBELL,
§
§
§
§
§
Defendants. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff First Commonwealth Bank has filed a Motion for Default Judgment
against Defendants Greater Services CIL LLC, Greater Services DFW LLC, and
Greater Services, Inc. (collectively, “Greater Services”). See Dkt. No. 16.
United States District Judge Karen Gren Scholer referred the motion to the
undersigned 	United 	States 	Magistrate 	Judge 	for 	hearing, 	if 	necessary, 	and
recommendation. See Dkt. No. 20.
For the reasons explained below, the Court should deny the Motion for Default
Judgment [Dkt. No. 16], vacate the Clerk of the Court’s entry of default against
Defendants, and order Plaintiff to seek a new entry of default against Defendants and
file a new motion for default judgment.
Background and Analysis
First Commonwealth filed this lawsuit against Greater Services and Defendant
Case 3:24-cv-02985-S Document 23 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

-2-
Kyle J. Campbell to recover damages for breach of contract and attorneys’ fees. See
Dkt. No 1.
On February 18, 2025, First Commonwealth filed proof of service of the Original
Complaint on all Defendants. See Dkt. Nos. 7, 9, & 10-13.
On March 14, 2025, after Defendants failed to answer the complaint, the Clerk
of the Court entered default against all Defendants. See Dkt. No. 15. And on March
20, 2025, First Commonwealth moved for default judgment against all Defendants.
On April 29, 2025, this Court ordered First Commonwealth to file an amended
complaint that properly alleged diversity of citizenship under 18 U.S.C. § 1332 to avoid
dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 17.
On May 1, 2025, First Commonwealth dismissed its claims against Campbell
and filed its First Amended Complaint against Greater Services. See Dkt. No. 19. The
First Amended Complaint amended First Commonwealth’s jurisdictional allegations,
but it did not add any new causes of action against Greater Services. See id.
First Commonwealth did not serve Greater Services with the First Amended
Complaint. And it need not do so because the First Amended Complaint did not add
any new causes of action against Greater Services. Accord PGM of Tex., LLC v. Great
Glory Cares, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-709-RP, 2024 WL 2131485, at *2 (W.D. Tex. May 13,
2024) (“PGM would not have to serve Defendants with its amended complaint unless
that pleading asserts a new claim.” (citing F ED. R. CIV. P. 5(a)(2); In re Chinese
Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 742 F.3d 576, 593-94 (5th Cir. 2014))
(cleaned up); Williams v. Eadgear Holdings USA, Inc., No. SA-13-CA-125-OLG, 2013
Case 3:24-cv-02985-S Document 23 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

-3-
WL 12114865, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2013) (“To the extent plaintiff is not submitting
new claims against a defendant, service of his second or third amended complaint on
that defendant is unnecessary.”).
But, because default was entered against Greater Services before the First
Amended Complaint (which does not incorporate by reference the prior pleadings) was
filed, the Court should find that the Original Complaint is a nullity, and it should
vacate the entry of default. See PGM of Tex., 2024 WL 2131485, at *2 (citing King v.
Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994); Merchs. Bonding Co. (Mut.) v. Veteran Owned
Servs. Grp., LLC, No. 3:23-CV-324-E, 2023 WL 7544597, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 26,
2023), rec. adopted, 2023 WL 7549188 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2023)).
And, because First Commonwealth filed its Motion for Default Judgment before
its First Amended Complaint, the motion is also moot, and the Court should deny it
as such. See id.
And, so, although First Commonwealth need not serve Greater Services with
its First Amended Complaint, the Court should order First Commonwealth to file a
new request for the Clerk’s entry of default against Greater Services and a new motion
for default judgment. Accord Hall v. Tone Knows, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-3273-K, 2026 WL
49333, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2026).
Recommendation
The Court should vacate the Clerk of the Court’s prior entry of default against
Defendants Greater Services CIL LLC, Greater Services DFW LLC, and Greater
Services, Inc. [Dkt. No. 15] and deny the Motion for Default Judgment [Dkt. No. 16]
Case 3:24-cv-02985-S Document 23 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

-4-
as moot. And the Court should order Plaintiff First Commonwealth Bank to seek a
new entry of default against Defendants and file a new motion for default judgment.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections within
14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); F ED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
In 	order 	to 	be 	specific, 	an 	objection 	must 	identify 	the 	specific 	finding 	or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge=s findings, conclusions, and recommendation
where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure
to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the
factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or
adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v.
United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
DATED: January 27, 2026
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-02985-S Document 23 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>