SUN NATIONAL BANK v. SEAFORD SPECIALTY SURGERY CENTER, LLC et al

Filing 69

OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 10/7/2015. (TH, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

(Doc. No. 68)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
___________________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
SEAFORD SPECIALTY SURGERY
:
CENTER, LLC, et al.,
:
:
Defendants. :
___________________________________ :
SUN NATIONAL BANK,

Civil Action No. 13–5800 (RBK/KMW)
OPINION

KUGLER, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Sun National Bank’s Motion for Default
Judgment (Doc. No. 68) against Seaford Specialty Surgery Center, LLC (“Seaford Surgery”) and
Medical Consulting Group Ambulatory Surgery Centers, L.L.C. (“Medical Consulting Group”)
(collectively, “Defendants”). For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiff’s Motion will be
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) governs a court’s determination concerning
entry of default judgment. The court should accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in
the complaint by virtue of the defendant’s default, except for allegations relating to the amount
of damages. Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990). However, the Court
must make an independent determination with respect to the legal effect of any agreement.
ATACS Corp. v. Trans World Commc’ns, Inc., 155 F.3d 659, 665 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing Linder v.
Inhalation Therapy Servs., Inc., 834 F.2d 306, 310 (3d Cir. 1987)).

1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

(Doc. No. 68)

On April 16, 2015, the Clerk entered default against Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 55(a). Plaintiff asserts breach of contract, seeking payment of three
promissory notes executed by Seaford Surgery, interest on those notes, and attorneys’ fees and
costs. Plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs, and payment of the loan guaranty made by
Medical Consulting Group.
To establish liability in New Jersey on a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff bears the
burden of showing: (1) that the parties entered into a valid contract, (2) the defendant failed to
perform its obligations under the contract, and (3) the breach resulted in damages sustained by
the plaintiff. Red Roof Franchising, LLC v. Patel, 564 Fed. Appx. 685, 688 (3d Cir. 2014)
(quoting Murphy v. Implicito, 392 N.J. Super. 245, 265 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007)).
Whether a valid contract exists is a legal, not a factual, determination. See ATACS Corp., 155
F.3d at 665. However, Plaintiff does not attach the relevant loan and guaranty agreements, so the
Court cannot determine the validity of those agreements.
To determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to default judgment, the Court requires Plaintiff
to file the loan and guaranty agreements. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

Dated: 10/07/2015

s/ Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge

2