POLIMEDA v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY et al
ORDER denying 6 Motion for Default Judgment ; granting 10 Motion to Vacate Clerk's Entry of Default; that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by May 12, 2015. Signed by Judge Madeline C. Arleo on 4/27/15. (DD, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, et al.,
Civil Action No. 14-7396
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff Joseph Polimeda
for default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) [Dkt. No. 6] and the
cross-motion of Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”) and One West
Bank, FSB (“One West”), to vacate default [Dkt. No. 10];
and it appearing that the entry of default judgment is disfavored, see Animal Sci. Prods.,
Inc. v. China Nat’l Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 842, 847 (D.N.J. 2008);
and it further
appearing that proof of proper service is a prerequisite to this Court’s entry of a default
judgment, see Chanel, Inc. v. Gordashevsky, 558 F. Supp. 2d 532, 535 (D.N.J. 2008); and it further
appearing that Plaintiff failed to effect proper service of the Complaint on Defendants; and
appearing that One West and MERS have demonstrated good cause in support of their
motion to vacate the clerk’s entry of default, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c); see also Chamberlain v.
Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2000);1
IT IS on this 27th day of April, 2015,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the cross-motion of Defendants MERS and One West to vacate default is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by May
s/ Madeline Cox Arleo
HON. MADELINE COX ARLEO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In determining whether to grant a motion for default judgment, the Court considers the following three factors: “(1)
prejudice to the plaintiff if default is denied, (2) whether the defendant appears to have a litigable defense, and (3)
whether defendant’s delay is due to culpable conduct.” Chamberlain, 210 F.3d at 164. Plaintiff would not be
prejudiced in the absence of a default judgment, since there is no indication that Plaintiff would be rendered unable
“to try his case on its merits” without entry of default. Toy v. Hayman, No. 07-3076, 2008 WL 5046723, at *3 (D.N.J.
Nov. 20, 2008). Moreover, there is no evidence that Defendants’ failure to timely answer or otherwise respond
resulted from their own culpable conduct. Rather, the evidence establishes that Defendants were never properly
served. Although Defendants have not demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense, the Court is satisfied that
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment should be denied on the basis of the first and third factors outlined above.
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?