FONT v. C & J AUTO SALES, LLC. et al

Filing 12

Letter ORDER denying 11 Motion for Default Judgment; Plaintiff may renew her motion for default judgment to cure the deficiencies, etc. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 8/17/12. (jd, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHAMBERS OF
ESTHER SALAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MARTIN LUTHER KING
COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
ROOM 5076
NEWARK, NJ 07101
973-297-4887

August 17, 2012
LETTER ORDER
Re:

Shannon Font v. C & J Auto Sales, LLC, et al.
Civil Action No. 11-3415 (ES)

Dear counsel:
Before the Court is Plaintiff Shannon Font’s (“Font” or “Plaintiff”) unopposed motion for
default judgment against Defendant Phil & Al’s Auto Center.1 (See Docket Entry No. 11). The
Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, as well as the accompanying Declaration of David Font.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) provides this Court with great discretion when
considering a motion for default judgment. Indeed, Rule 55(b)(2) allows the Court to “conduct
hearings or make referrals . . . to enter or effectuate [a] judgment [when] it needs to (A) conduct
an accounting; (B) determine the amount of damages; (C) establish the truth of any allegation by
evidence; or (D) investigate any other matter.”
The Court finds that exercising such discretion is warranted here where the Court
requires additional evidence to establish the truth of Plaintiff’s allegations and effectuate the
judgment. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)). Specifically, the Court was not provided with any
documentation to support Plaintiff’s damage claims. That is, Plaintiff neither provided the Court
with the bill of sale confirming the price that she allegedly paid to purchase her vehicle; nor did
Plaintiff provide the Court with any evidence to support the costs associated with repairing the
vehicle. By contrast, Plaintiff only provided the Court with the following unsubstantiated
allegation: “[b]ecause of the large amount of wear on the vehicle, repairs have been needed
almost immediately. These include the following amounts, new engine, $4,379, starter $472,
and clutch $498. As noted, I have already paid $5,269 for the car.”2 (Font Decl. ¶ 4). This
1
2

Plaintiff has only moved for default judgment against this Defendant.

The Court makes the following two observations that it would like clarified. First, it is unclear who is the actual
Plaintiff in this case. For example, the only Plaintiff’s name listed in the caption is Shannon Font; however, in
David Font’s Declaration he states “I am the plaintiff in the above entitled action.” (Font Decl. ¶ 1). Second, it is
unclear who actually purchased the vehicle. (Compare Compl. ¶ 1 (“[Shannon Font] is the purchaser of the vehicle)
with Font Decl. ¶ 2 (“I purchased the vehicle . . . .”)).

Court will not, nor should it, speculate as to how Plaintiff arrived at these particular amounts.
Without more, this Court cannot provide Plaintiff with the relief she seeks.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion, as currently drafted,
deficient. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. The Court’s
denial is without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew her motion for default judgment to cure the
deficiencies outlined above. In the interim, the Clerk of Court shall terminate Docket Entry No.
11.
SO ORDERED.
s/Esther Salas
Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.

-2-