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)
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?