REARDON v. SEGAL et al

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Denying 38 Motion for an Order Setting Down a Trial Date as to Damages for this Lawsuit, etc. AND Denying 43 Motion to Compell Clerk to enter Default and Default judgment and to compel answers and discovery. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 8/11/16. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOHN E. REARDON,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL NO. 15-244(NLH/JS)

v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
VINCENT SEGAL, et al.,
Defendants.

Appearances:
JOHN E. REARDON
1 JOANS LANE
BERLIN, NJ 08009
Appearing pro se
BRIAN P. WILSON
OKEANO NOEL ANSEL BELL
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DIVISION OF LAW
25 MARKET STREET
P.O. BOX 116
TRENTON, NJ 08625
On behalf of defendants
HILLMAN, District Judge
This matter having come before the Court on plaintiff’s
motions “for an Order Setting Down a Trial Date as to Damages for
this Lawsuit” [38] and “to Compel Clerk to enter Default and
Default judgment and to compel answers and discovery” [43]; and
With regard to motion [38], plaintiff arguing that because
two of the defendants, “Klein and Segal,” are in default by
failing to respond to his lawsuit, they waive all of their

“objections and defenses,” and the Court should “set down a date
for trial as to damages” against these two defendants; and
With regard to motion [43], plaintiff arguing that defendants
have waived their objections as to the sufficiency of service of
process; and
The Court having considered both of plaintiff’s motions, as
well as all the other submissions plaintiff has filed in further
support of his motions [44, 47, 48, 49, 50]; and
The Court finding that plaintiff’s motions must be denied
because plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has properly served
any of the defendants, including “Klein and Segal,” in accordance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) (an individual may be served in a
judicial district of the United States by following state law for
serving a summons or by personal service) and N.J. Ct. R. 4:44(a)(1) (providing that service is proper when the summons and
complaint are personally served on the defendant, and that a
defendant is not required to serve a responsive pleading until he
or she is properly served); 1 and
The Court further finding that judgment cannot be entered
against any party, by way of default or trial, who has not been
property served, see Grand Entm't Grp., Ltd. v. Star Media Sales,

1

Plaintiff states that he sent the Summons and Complaint by
“simultaneously mailing same, via certified and regular mail, to
all defendants all of which were not returned.” (Docket No. 43,
at 3, ¶ 3).
2

Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 492 (3d Cir. 1993) (“A district court's power
to assert in personam authority over [a defendant] is dependent
not only on compliance with due process but also on compliance
with the technicalities of Rule 4.”); and
The Court further finding that defendants have not waived
their right to challenge the sufficiency of service, cf., Grand
Entm't Grp., 988 F.2d at 492 (“Notice to a defendant that he has
been sued does not cure defective service, and an appearance for
the limited purpose of objecting to service does not waive the
technicalities of the rule governing service.”); McCurdy v. Am.
Bd. of Plastic Surgery, 157 F.3d 191, 194 (3d Cir. 1998) (“[I]f a
Rule 12 motion is made and the defendant omits its objection to
the timeliness or effectiveness of service under Rule 12(b)(5),
that objection is waived.”).
Therefore,
IT IS on this

11th

day of

August

, 2016

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions “for an Order Setting Down a
Trial Date as to Damages for this Lawsuit” [38], and “to Compel
Clerk to enter Default and Default judgment and to compel answers
and discovery” [43] be, the same hereby are, DENIED.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

3