C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Victor Rodriguez Law Firm, PLLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 7:25-CV-00337
§
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ LAW FIRM, §
PLLC, and VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, JR., §
§
Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (“C.H. Robinson”) hired Defendants
Victor Rodriguez Law Firm, PLLC and Victor Rodriguez, Jr. (collectively, “Defendants”)
to represent it in a personal injury suit in Texas state court. C.H. Robinson claims that
Defendants committed malpractice in their representation by repeatedly failing to
communicate, file dispositive motions, or otherwise adequately represent C.H. Robinson
resulting in significant discovery sanctions and a $3.9 million settlement payment.
Based on this, C.H. Robinson sued Defendants for (1) attorney
negligence/malpractice, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) negligent misrepresentation,
(4) intentional/fraudulent misrepresentation, and (5) breach of contract. (Dkt. No. 1). It
served both Defendants, (Dkt. No. 9), but neither Victor Rodriguez Law Firm, PLLC nor
Rodriguez have answered or otherwise appeared in this litigation. C.H. Robinson
therefore requested an entry of default from the Clerk. (Dkt. No. 11). The Clerk entered
default against both Defendants on October 3, 2025. (Dkt. No. 12). C.H. Robinson now
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 17, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:25-cv-00337 Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2
moves for default judgment. (Dkt. No. 13). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES
the Motion without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 16, 2019, Marco Tulio Aleman, a C.H. Robinson employee, was driving
northbound on FM 1015 when he collided with a vehicle being driven southbound. (Dkt.
No. 1 at 2). Aleman alleged that immediately preceding the crash he experienced micro
sleep episodes due to extreme fatigue. (Id. at 3). He further alleged that these episodes
caused the crash. (Id.). On June 18, 2020, Aleman filed a personal injury action in Texas
state court against C.H. Robinson and the other driver involved in the crash. (Id.). C.H.
Robinson retained Defendants as counsel in that lawsuit. (Id.).
According to C.H. Robinson, however, Defendants did not provide adequate
representation. (Id.). Throughout the pendency of the case, Defendants allegedly failed
to respond to emails and phone calls, failed to file dispositive motions, and repeatedly
lied to C.H. Robinson about filing motions and requesting continuances. (Id. at 3–5). In
April 2025, after learning that Defendants had failed to move for a continuance and that
the case would shortly be going to trial, C.H. Robinson fired Defendants and hired
substitute counsel. (Id. at 5). Despite repeated requests, Defendants failed to provide
their case file materials to C.H. Robinson until the eve of trial. (Id. at 6). Among these
files were records of significant discovery sanctions against C.H. Robinson due to
Defendants’ inadequate representation that resulted in at least $2.1 million in
uncontested special damages. (Id. at 6–11).
Case 7:25-cv-00337 Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3
C.H. Robinson was forced to proceed to trial despite having “no ability to call any
witnesses, no ability to introduce trial exhibits,” and having “admitted liability” due to
the extensive discovery sanctions. (Id. at 11). The case ultimately settled, and C.H.
Robinson was required to pay Aleman a total of $3.9 million. (Id.at 11).
C.H. Robinson sued Defendants on July 2, 2025. (Dkt. No. 1). It brought five
claims: (1) attorney negligence/malpractice, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) negligent
misrepresentation, (4) intentional/fraudulent misrepresentation, and (5) breach of
contract. (Id. at 12–30). It served both Defendants, (Dkt. No. 9), however, neither
Defendant has answered or appeared. C.H. Robinson thus requested an entry of default
from the Clerk. (Dkt. No. 11). It also submitted a declaration explaining that neither
Defendant had served an answer, filed a responsive pleading, or contacted C.H. Robinson
about the case. (Dkt. No. 11-1). Based on this request, the Clerk entered default against
both Defendants on October 3, 2025. (Dkt. No. 12). C.H. Robinson now moves for default
judgment. (Dkt. No. 13).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the process for obtaining
a default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. That process consists of three components: (1) a
default, (2) an entry of default, and (3) a default judgment. “A default occurs when a
defendant has failed to plead or otherwise respond to the complaint within the time
required by the Federal Rules.” N.Y. Life Ins. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 141 (5th Cir. 1996)
(emphasis in original). “An entry of default is what the clerk enters when the default is
established by affidavit or otherwise.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
Case 7:25-cv-00337 Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4
55(a)). And “a default judgment” is what happens when the “defendant’s default has been
entered” after the plaintiff “appl[ied] for a judgment based on [the] default.” Id.
(emphasis in original).
Thus, obtaining the clerk’s entry of default is a prerequisite to seeking default
judgment. Id. Accordingly, when a party has not yet obtained the clerk’s entry of default,
that party’s motion for default judgment must be denied. See, e.g., Allbrook v. Watkins,
No. 4:22-CV-03907, 2023 WL 10554580, at *1 (S.D. Tex. July 11, 2023) (citing cases).
But once the clerk has entered default, the plaintiff must show that there is
“jurisdiction both over the subject matter and the parties.” Sys. Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. M/V
Viktor Kurnatovskiy, 242 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 2001). Once a plaintiff proves jurisdiction,
courts must then address three issues to determine whether a motion for default
judgment is appropriate: “(1) if a default judgment is procedurally appropriate; (2) if the
plaintiff has presented a colorable claim; and (3) how to calculate damages or equitable
relief.” Shinsho Am. Corp. v. HyQuality Alloys, LLC, 694 F.Supp.3d 805, 816–17 (S.D. Tex.
2023) (citing Vela v. M&G USA Corp., No. 2:17-CV-13, 2020 WL 421188, at *1 (S.D. Tex.
Jan. 27, 2020)).
“A party is not entitled to a default judgment as a matter of right, even where the
defendant is technically in default.” Ganther v. Ingle, 75 F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir. 1996) (per
curiam) (citing Mason v. Lister, 562 F.2d 343, 345 (5th Cir. 1977)). Instead, “the entry of
default judgment is committed to the discretion of the district judge.” Mason, 562 F.2d at
345. “‘Any doubt as to whether to enter or set aside a default judgment must be resolved
in favor of the defaulting party.’” Axcess Glob. Scis., LLC v. Ozcan Grp., Inc., No. 4:23-CV-
Case 7:25-cv-00337 Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5
02704, 2024 WL 3259700, at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 1, 2024) (quoting John Perez Graphics &
Design, LLC v. Green Tree Inv. Grp., Inc., No. 3:12-CV-04194, 2013 WL 1828671, at *3 (N.D.
Tex. May 1, 2013)). That is because a default judgment is “a drastic remedy, not favored
by the Federal Rules and resorted to by courts only in extreme situations.” Sun Bank of
Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass’n, 874 F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1989) (footnotes
omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
C.H. Robinson asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendants and
award $3,900,000 in damages plus post-judgment interest. (Dkt. No. 13 at 2). The Court
cannot grant that relief based on the current record.
“To obtain a default judgment,” a plaintiff “must submit evidence showing that
the defendant has been properly served with the summons, complaint, and the default
judgment motion.” McCarty v. Tacklife Inc., No. 6:22-CV-00037, 2024 WL 4028728, at *1 (S.D.
Tex. Sept. 2, 2024) (emphasis added); S.D. Tex. Loc. R. 5.5 (“Motions for default judgment
must be served on the defendant-respondent by certified mail (return receipt
requested).”).
C.H. Robinson has not met the service requirement. Its Motion for Default
Judgment does not state whether Defendants were served with the Motion. (Dkt. No.
13). It also provides no evidence that service has occurred—let alone that it complied
with Rule 5.5. On this record, default judgment is not appropriate.
Case 7:25-cv-00337 Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendants
Victor Rodriguez, Jr. and Victor Rodriguez Law Firm, PLLC, (Dkt. No. 13), is DENIED
without prejudice.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on February 13, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 7:25-cv-00337 Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6