WINGATE INNS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. INN AT MISSOURI RESEARCH PARK, LLLP et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying 11 Motion for Default Judgment, w/out prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 12/27/2013. (nr, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civil Action No. 13-1638 (CCC)
WINGATE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
INN AT MISSOURI RESEARCH PARK,
LLP, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants.

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the motion of Plaintiff for the entry of
default judgment. [CM/ECF No. 11.] The motion is denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff commenced this action on March 15, 2013. [CM/ECF No. 1.] Plaintiff
served the Complaint on Defendants on May 6, 2013. [CM/ECF No. 5.] The time for
Defendants to answer or otherwise move in response to the Complaint expired. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(a). Defendants failed to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), the Clerk entered a Default against
Defendants on August 27, 2013. [CM/ECF No. 7.] Plaintiff filed the instant motion for
default judgment on November 8, 2013. On November 26, 2013, Mr. Harold Whitfield,
representing himself to be Defendants’ CEO, filed a letter stating that he is in Missouri
and requesting additional time to “obtain local counsel and file a response to Plaintiff’s
Complaint.” [CM/ECF No. 12.]
The motion for default judgment is denied without prejudice. Mr. Whitfield’s
letter suggests he would like to retain counsel and defend the case. Given the leniency
routinely afforded to pro se litigants, the Court believes that it is appropriate to provide
Mr. Whitfield one final opportunity to retain counsel to represent the Defendant
companies. The Third Circuit has a strong preference that matters be resolved on the
merits whenever possible, e.g., Emasco Ins. Co. v. Sambrick, 834 F.2d 71, 74 (3d Cir.

Page 1 of 2

1987), and the Court is satisfied that providing Mr. Whitfield with one final opportunity
to proceed will not prejudice Plaintiff in this case.

Based on the above, Defendants shall have until January 27, 2014, to retain
counsel and have a notice of appearance entered on the docket. Mr. Whitfield is hereby
advised that because Defendants are all companies, they must retain counsel and he
cannot defend the case on their behalf. See, e.g., Rowland v. California Men’s Colony,
506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); Simbraw, Inc. v. United States, 367 F.2d 373, 374 (3d Cir.
1966).
If Defendants fail to have counsel enter an appearance by January 27, 2014,
Plaintiff may renew its motion for default judgment. Because of the procedural history
stated herein, all parties are advised that no further extensions of deadlines will be
permitted.
Plaintiff is directed to serve Mr. Whitfield with a copy of this Order by overnight
mail within one business day of the date of this Order.

s/Mark Falk
MARK FALK
United States Magistrate Judge

DATED: December 27, 2013

Page 2 of 2