MAERSK LINE v. TJM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY et al
Filing
9
ORDER Denying without prejudice 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment; ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a new motion for default judgment which addresses the deficiencies noted herein within thirty (30) days of this Order. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 4/18/2019. (dmr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MAERSK LINE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil No. 18-11668 (NLH/KMW)
TJM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY, MARSH AND
ASSOCIATES SIGNING SERVICES
LLC, CHERYL MARSH,
ORDER
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
RICK A. STEINBERG
PRICE MEESE SHULMAN & D’ARMINIO, P.C.
50 TICE BOULEVARD
3RD FLOOR
WOODCLIFF LAKE, NJ 07677
Attorney for Plaintiff Maersk Line.
HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS this case was brought by Plaintiff on July 16, 2018
against Defendants Cheryl Marsh, Marsh & Associates Signing
Services, LLC, and TJM International Limited Liability Company;
and
WHEREAS summons were thereafter issued and were returned
executed as to all Defendants by July 23, 2018; and
WHEREAS Plaintiff requested the Clerk to enter default
against Defendants Marsh and Associates and TJM International
(collectively, the “Entity Defendants”) on September 5, 2018;
and
WHEREAS the Clerk entered default as to the Entity
Defendants on September 6, 2018; and
WHEREAS on November 8, 2018 Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Default Judgment against Entity Defendants only; and
WHEREAS a party seeking default judgment “is not entitled
to a default judgment as of a right,” Franklin v. Nat’l Maritime
Union of Am., No. 91-480, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9819, at *3-4
(D.N.J. 1991) (quoting 10 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2685 (1983)), aff’d, 972 F.2d 1331 (3d
Cir. 1992); and
WHEREAS the decision to enter a default judgment is “left
primarily to the discretion of the district court,” Hritz v.
Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178, 1180 (3d Cir. 1984); and
WHEREAS before entering a default judgment the Court must
decide whether “the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate
cause of action, since a party in default does not admit mere
conclusions of law,” Chanel v. Gordashevsky, 558 F. Supp. 2d
532, 535 (D.N.J. 2008) (citing Directv, Inc. v. Asher, No. 031969, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14027, at *3 (D.N.J. Mar. 14,
2006)); and
WHEREAS the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment, the attachments thereto, and all other filings on the
2
docket, and finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment
deficient in the following respects:
•
Plaintiff does not include a brief explaining why it is
entitled to default judgment, on what claims it is entitled
to default judgment, the elements of those claims and how
it has shown each of those elements, the appropriate
measure of damages under those claims, and what damages it
is entitled to in light of the above and the facts
presented in this case;
•
More specifically, Plaintiff has not explained to this
Court the statutory basis for the claim under the Shipping
Act and its effects - including preemption - on the state
law claims asserted, if any;
•
Plaintiff has not filed on the docket the contract under
which it asserts its claim for breach of contract;
•
Plaintiff provides an account summary, but has not provided
to the Court the service contracts, bills of lading,
freight bills, or invoices upon which it asserts this
summary is based and which would be required for the Court
to determine the correct amount of damages, if any, for the
claims asserted; and
WHEREAS in light of those deficiencies, this Court finds it
cannot properly enter default judgment at this time; but
3
WHEREAS this Court finds those deficiencies may be cured
through further briefing and the filing of exhibits;
THEREFORE,
IT IS on this
18th
day of
April
, 2019
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [8] is
hereby DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a new motion for default
judgment which addresses the deficiencies noted herein within
thirty (30) days of this Order.
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
At Camden, New Jersey
4
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?