Long et al v. Juice Box Vapor Company et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 4/13/2018 - Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against ShenZhen will be granted. An order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum. cc:counsel (DAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-00344-CRS
JUICE BOX VAPOR COMPANY;
PREMIUM ESTORE, LLC;
SHENZHEN FEST TECHNOLOGY;
ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES INC.
UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS A-Z, who, upon
information and belief, whether on its own or
acting in concert with another, did (a) manufacture,
design, sell, or distribute certain coils, as described
more particularly herein, to Juice Box and/or
(b) manufacture, design, sell or distribute Efest
battery and/or the Efest battery charger, as
described more particularly herein.
This case is before the court on plaintiffs Zachary Long and Katie Long’s (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) motion for default judgment on its claims against ShenZhen Fest Technology
Company, Ltd. (“ShenZhen”). ECF No. 29. ShenZhen has not responded. This matter is now ripe
for review. For the reasons stated below, this motion will be granted.
On June 3, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against ShenZhen and others in this court.
ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs later amended this Complaint on October 24, 2016. ECF No. 14. The
Amended Complaint alleges that Zachary Long suffered bodily injury when an e-cigarette
exploded in his mouth. ECF No. 14, ¶ 23. The Amended Complaint further alleges that the e1
cigarette’s battery—which was the source of the explosion—was designed, manufactured, and
sold by ShenZhen. Id. at ¶ 4. Zachary Long states claims for strict liability, negligence, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act against
ShenZhen. Id. at ¶¶ 115-88. Katie Long states a claim for loss of consortium against ShenZhen.
Id. at ¶¶ 232-237.
On August 16, 2016, Plaintiffs issued a Summons in a Civil Action and a copy of the
Complaint to ShenZhen. ECF No. 10. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(h) and 4(f),
the Summons and the copy of the Complaint were duly served upon ShenZhen in accordance
with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents. ECF
Plaintiffs now request this court to enter a default judgment against ShenZhen pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). ECF No. 29. Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the court
order and adjudge that they are entitled to any and all relief against ShenZhen to the full extent of
any and all fault a jury does, or might, apportion to ShenZhen. Id. Plaintiffs further request that
this court grant them leave to seek further relief as necessary to enforce, clarify, modify, and/or
amend this judgment in default against ShenZhen. Id.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), “[a] party must apply to the court for a
default judgment” when an opposing party fails to plead or otherwise defend against a claim.
Before the court enters default judgment, there must be an entry of default by the Clerk of Court
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).
Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 55(b). Plaintiffs properly served
ShenZhen with the Summons and a copy of the Complaint in accordance with the Hague
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents. ECF No. 21-1.
ShenZhen failed to answer or otherwise defend itself against this Complaint. Plaintiffs then
obtained an entry of default against ShenZhen from the Clerk of Court. ECF Nos.24- 25.
Therefore, default judgment against ShenZhen is appropriate.
For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against
ShenZhen will be granted. An order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum.
April 13, 2018
C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
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?