HOFMANN v. DRATEL et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 6 Motion for Default Judgment without prejudice. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 9/3/13. (gh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ERNST HOFFMAN,

Civ. No. 13-2828 (WJM)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

WILLIAM DRATEL, SHARYN LAWALL
DRATEL,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ernst Hoffman’s motion for
default judgment against Defendants William Dratel and Sharyn Lawall Dratel pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); and it appearing that default was entered by the Clerk of the
Court against Defendants on June 21, 2013 for their failure to plead or otherwise defend
in this action; and Plaintiff having thereafter moved for default judgment against
Defendants in the amount of $368,759.10 on July 16, 2013 based on the terms set forth in
a one-page letter which appears to be signed by all parties (the “Default Judgment
Motion”) (ECF No. 6); and it appearing that at the time of that filing, Plaintiff failed to
serve Defendants with copies of the Default Judgment Motion; and the Court noting that
Plaintiff’s one-page affidavit of service filed with this Court on August 16, 2013 –
indicating that Defendant William Dratel was served with a “Request to Enter Default”
on July 30, 2013 – fails to adequately demonstrate that Defendants were otherwise served
with copies of Default Judgment Motion; and the Court further noting that even after

obtaining entry of default, parties are not entitled to the subsequent entry of default
judgment as of right. Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178, 1180 (3d Cir.1984); and that
“[b]efore imposing the extreme sanction of default, [the Court must consider]: (1)
whether the party subject to default has a meritorious defense, (2) the prejudice suffered
by the party seeking default, and (3) the culpability of the party subject to default.” Doug
Brady, Inc. v. N.J. Bldg. Laborers Statewide Funds, 250 F.R.D. 171, 177 (D.N.J. 2008)
(citing Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Sambrick, 834 F.2d 71, 74 (3d Cir. 1987)); and entry of the
extreme sanction of default being within the discretion of the Court. Hritz at 1180 (3d
Cir.1984); and under the circumstances of the present motion, in which Plaintiff seeks
over $368,000 from Defendants based on a one-page document, and has failed to
adequately demonstrate that the present Default Judgment Motion was served upon
Defendants; and for good cause appearing,
IT IS on this 3rd day of September 2013, hereby,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment in favor of
Plaintiff Ernst Hoffman and against Defendants William Dratel and Lawall Dratel is
DENIED without prejudice.

s/William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

2