United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Hammerhead Distribution Incorporated v. Safeco Insurance Company of America et al

Filing 39

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS- denying 35 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Kyu H. Park filed by Hammerhead Distribution Incorporated. Please note that when filing Objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), briefing consists solely of the Objections (no longer than ten (10) pages) and the Response to the Objections (no longer than ten (10) pages). No further briefing shall be permitted with respect to objections without leave of the Court. Objections to R&R due by 3/4/2013. Signed by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 2/15/2013. (lih)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF HAMMERHEAD DISTRIBUTION INCORPORATED d/b/a MORRIS GINSBERG COMPANY, Plaintiff, V. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, COMMONWEALTH CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., BEST INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. and KYU H. PARK, Defendants. Civil Action No. 11-1160-SLR-SRF ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION At Wilmington this 15th day ofFebruary, 2013, a Renewed Motion for Entry ofDefault Judgment Against Kyu H. Park ("Park") having been filed by Plaintiff (D.I. 35), and the Clerk having entered an Entry of Default in Appearance as to Park on March 14, 2012 (D.I. 20), and a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition having been filed by Park on April30, 2012, 1 I recommend that the court deny Plaintiffs motion without prejudice to renew upon a showing that Plaintiffs claim was not asserted and discharged in Park's bankruptcy proceeding. This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(l)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(l), and D. Del. LR 72.1. The parties may serve and file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. 1 0n April 30, 2012, Park filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland, Case No. 1218035. (D.I. 27 at 1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The failure of a party to object to legal conclusions may result in the loss ofthe right to de novo review in the district court. See Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 87879 (3d Cir. 1987); Sincavage v. Barnhart, 171 F. App'x 924, 925 n.1 (3d Cir. 2006). The parties are directed to the Court's Standing Order In Non-ProSe Matters For Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated November 16, 2009, a copy of which is available at http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders/general-orders. Dated: February 15, 2013 AGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?