COLUMBUS LTACH MANAGEMENT, LLC v. QUANTUM LTACH HOLDINGS, LLC et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 2/20/2018. (sr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

COLUMBUS LTACH MANAGEMENT, LLC
and COLUMBUS LTACH, LLC,
Flainttffi,

Civil Action No. 16-65 10
ORDER

V.

QUANTUM LTACH HOLDINGS, LLC and
QUANTUM INTERNATIONAL INCOME
CORP.,
Defendants.

John Michael Vazguez, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court by way of Plaintiffs’ unopposed motiOn for default
judgment as to Defendant Quantum LTACH Holdings, LLC (D.E. 21); and it further
APPEARING that two of the remaining Defendants, Quantum International Income
Corporation and Manu Sekhri, have filed a pending motion to dismiss (D.E. 13) Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint;’ and it further
APPEARING that Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant Quantum LTACH Holdings,
LLC is “nothing more than the alter[]ego” of Defendant Quantum International Income
Corporation (D.E. 9 at ¶ 9); and it further
APPEARING that “[ijf 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

Grant White also remains a co-Defendant in this matter. Plaintiffs have not moved for default
against Mr. White. Mr. White also has not answered or moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint.

resolved on its merits against the non-defaulting defendants.” Animal Science Prods., Inc. v. China
Nat’l Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d $42, $49 (D.N.J. 200$); see also
1OA Charles A. Wright et a!, 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 nondefaulting defendants”). This is because courts do not want to “create the risk of potentially
inconsistent judgments.” Eteam, Inc. v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc., 2016 WL 54676, at *3
(D.N.J. Jan. 5, 2016) (denying motion for default judgment where allegations against defaulting
and non-defaulting defendants were identical).
As Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment only applies to Defendant Quantum LTACH
Holdings, LLC, the Court in keeping with the preferred practice of this District will not grant
default judgment2 until the action is resolved as to the remaining Defendants.
For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 20th day of F ebniary, 201$, hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment as to Defendant Quantum LTACH

Holdings, LLC (D.E. 21) is DENIED without prejudice.

John Michael Vazqubj

2

u.j.J.

To be clear, the Court is not indicating that it will necessarily enter default judgment once the
matter is resolved as to all remaining Defendants. Instead, the Court is indicating that it will not
consider such a motion until that time.

2