CHASE v. MERSON et al

Filing 130

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. Show Cause Response due by 11/8/2019. (clp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JOHN F. CHASE,
PLAINTIFF
V.

ARTHUR MERSON,

ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:18-CV-165-DBH

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The plaintiff filed two motions for entry of default and default judgment
against four defendants in this case. Pl.’s Mots. for Entry of Default & Default
J. as to Defs. Ochoa & Law Office of Chris Ochoa (ECF No. 34) and Hearld &
Stellar Enterprises, Inc. (ECF No. 77).

Default was entered for all four

defendants. Orders Granting Mots. for Entry of Default (ECF Nos. 35 & 78). I
have not yet ruled on the motions for default judgment.
Now that I have dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the non-defaulted
defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and I have declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction, Dec. & Order on Pending Motions (ECF No. 129), it
appears I must also deny the default judgment motions.

See 10A Wright &

Miller, Fed. Practice & Pro. § 2690 (4th ed. 2016) at pp. 96-97 (“[I]f the action is
dismissed, it should be dismissed as to the defaulting party as well as the
remaining defendants.”); Restatement (2d) of Judgments § 65 (“[A] judgment by
default may be avoided if it was rendered without compliance with the

[jurisdictional] requirements stated in § 1.”); 3 Moore, Fed. Practice & Pro.
§ 25.104(2)(b)(1) (“If a court renders a judgment without subject matter
jurisdiction, whether by default or on the merits, the judgment is void. The issue
of subject-matter jurisdiction is always open, and courts at every stage of a
proceeding are required to consider the issue even though the parties have failed
to raise it.”).
Accordingly, I ORDER that the plaintiff SHOW CAUSE by November 8, 2019,
why I should not deny his motions for default judgment.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2