Groeneweg v. Citibank NA - Motion for Default Judgment Denied
Summary
Chief Judge Holly A. Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denied plaintiff Brent Groeneweg's motion for entry of default and default judgment against Citibank NA. The court found that Citibank's pending motion to compel arbitration constitutes a responsive pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), and therefore Citibank has not failed to defend the lawsuit. The court relied on precedent holding that a motion to compel arbitration is a proper responsive pleading brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) as a forum-selection clause. Citibank's case remains pending before Magistrate Judge Andrew Teel.
“Citibank properly and timely filed a pleading responsive to Groeneweg's complaint and is actively defending against his claims.”
Debt collectors and creditors who assert arbitration clauses as a defense should note that filing a motion to compel arbitration prevents entry of default under Rule 55(a), even if the motion contains procedural defects such as citing the wrong subdivision of Rule 12(b). However, counsel should ensure motions to compel arbitration correctly invoke Rule 12(b)(3) as a forum-selection clause motion, not Rule 12(b)(1) regarding subject-matter jurisdiction, to avoid potential waiver arguments.
About this source
GovPing monitors US District Court NDIN Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 7 changes logged to date.
What changed
The court held that a motion to compel arbitration, filed in lieu of an answer to the complaint, constitutes a valid responsive pleading that prevents entry of default under Rule 55(a). The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that only a formal answer counts as defending the lawsuit. The court also clarified that Citibank's erroneous reliance on Rule 12(b)(1) rather than Rule 12(b)(3) was a technical defect, but did not render the motion non-responsive. The underlying legal principle is that arbitration clauses function as forum-selection clauses, and motions to compel arbitration therefore relate to venue and are properly brought as responsive pleadings.
For defendants in debt collection litigation, this ruling confirms that filing a motion to compel arbitration is a viable alternative to filing an answer and will prevent entry of default. Defendants asserting arbitration clauses should ensure their motions cite the correct procedural rule (12(b)(3)) and do not mischaracterize arbitration as affecting subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs seeking default judgment should be aware that pending arbitration motions may defeat the default even if procedurally imperfect.
Archived snapshot
Apr 25, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Trial Court Document
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 7, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Brent Groeneweg v. Citibank NA
District Court, N.D. Indiana
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 1:26-cv-00061
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
BRENT GROENEWEG,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO. 1:26-CV-61-HAB-ALT
CITIBANK NA,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Brent Groeneweg (“Groeneweg”), proceeding without an attorney, is suing
Citibank NA (“Citibank”) for several claims related to the company’s efforts to collect on
Groeneweg’s debt from a Citibank credit card. (ECF 5). Groeneweg first filed his complaint
against Citibank in Allen Superior Court on January 12, 2026. (Id.). On February 5, 2026, Citibank
timely removed Groeneweg’s case to this Court. (ECF 1). Citibank later sought and received an
extension of time until March 12, 2026, to respond to Groeneweg’s complaint. (ECF 10, 13). On
March 12, Citibank filed a motion to compel arbitration in lieu of an answer. (ECF 19). That
motion has been referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew Teel and is still pending.
But Groeneweg now moves for an entry of default and default judgment against Citibank
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. (ECF 28). He insists that he is entitled to an entry of
default because Citibank’s motion to compel arbitration is not a responsive pleading, thus Citibank
has failed to defend the lawsuit. Rule 55(a) provides that “[w] hen a party against whom a judgment
for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by
affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.” Groeneweg offers nothing to
explain why he would also be entitled to a default judgment if the clerk makes an entry of default.
Groeneweg’s entire basis for his motion is flawed because defendants in a pending lawsuit
“may file a petition or motion to compel arbitration in lieu of an answer to the complaint.” Lamkin
v. Morinda Props. Weight Parcel, LLC, 440 F. App'x 604, 607 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Jay A.
Grenig, Alternative Dispute Resolution § 23:3 at 574 (3d ed. 2005)); see also Nellum v. Credit
Acceptance Corp., No. 1:25-CV-01579-TWP-CSW, 2025 WL 3222813, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 18,
2025) (“A defendant may file a motion to compel arbitration in lieu of an answer.”). “An arbitration
clause is a type of forum-selection clause,” so motions to compel arbitration “concern venue” and
“are brought properly under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3)” as a responsive pleading.
Grasty v. Colorado Tech. Univ., 599 F. App'x 596, 597 (7th Cir. 2015).
But instead of citing Rule 12(b)(3), Citibank’s motion to compel referenced Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to contend that the arbitration clause at issue would deprive the Court
of subject-matter jurisdiction. (ECF 19). This is wrong. “[A]n agreement to arbitrate does not affect
a district court's subject-matter jurisdiction.” Grasty, 599 F. App’x at 597. Despite this error,
Citibank’s motion still constitutes a responsive pleading that the Court is free to consider. Id. Citibank properly and timely filed a pleading responsive to Groeneweg’s complaint and is
actively defending against his claims. Groeneweg’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default
Judgment (ECF 28) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on April 7, 2026.
s/ Holly A. Brady
CHIEF JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for US District Court NDIN Docket Feed
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from NDIN.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when US District Court NDIN Docket Feed publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.