Dartell v. Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

Filing 318

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 308 Motion for Default Judgment as to Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., etc. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 06/01/2018. (ek)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ROBN JOACHIM DARTELL, et at.,
individually and on behalf all others
similarly situated,
Civil Action No. 14-3 620
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
V.

TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS, TNC., et
at.,

Defendants.

John Michael Vazguez., U.S.D.J.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of Plaintiffs Edmund Obasi, Robin

Dartell, Lixin Wu, and Sean Carithers’ (collectively “Plaintiffs”) unopposed Motion for Default
Judgment as to Defendant Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., D.E. 308; and it
APPEARING that even when a party is actually in default “the other side is not entitled

to the entry of default judgment as of right, and the entry of such a judgment is lefi primarily to
the discretion of the district court.” Sanchez v. Franzzano, No. 15-2316, 2016 WL 2892551, at *1
(D.N.J. May 12,2016) (quoting Ramada Worldwide Inc. v. Abel Lodging, LLC, No. 14-2683, 2014
WL 5361914, at *1 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2014)); and it further
APPEARING that “[i]f a default is entered against some defendants in a multi-party case,

the preferred practice is for the court to withhold granting default judgment until the action is
resolved on its merits against the non-defaulting defendants.” Animal Science Prods., Inc., 596 F.
Supp. 2d at 849; see also 1OA Charles A. Wright et al, Fed. Prac. & Proc.

§ 2690 (3d ed. 2015)

(when several defendants have closely related defenses “entry of judgment also should await an

adjudication of the liability of non[-]defaulting defendants”). This is because courts do not want
to “create the risk of potentially inconsistent judgments.” Eteam, Inc. v. Hilton Worldwide
Holdings, Inc., No. 15-5057 (WHW)(CLW), 2016 WI 54676, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 5, 2016) (denying
motion for default judgment where allegations against defaulting and non-defaulting defendants
were identical); and it further
APPEARING that, besides Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., there are other remaining

defendants who are actively litigating this case. See, e.g. D.E. 286 (Defendants Hayden Zou and
L. McCarthy Downs III’s pending motion to dismiss). However, Plaintiffs have only requested

default judgment as to Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Consequently, entering a default judgment at

this time would not be prudent due to the risk of potentially inconsistent judgments. Plaintiffs may
re-file their motion for default judgment after this matter is resolved as to all other remaining
defendants; therefore
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown
IT IS on this 1st day of June, 2018, hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment as to Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
D.E. 308, is DENIED without prejudice.

John Michael Vazque) O..D.J.

2