ONG et al v. SUPERIOR COURT OF HUDSON COUNTY et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 29 Motion Opposing for another Extension of Time; Denying 30 Motion for Default Judgment ; Denying 28 Motion for Issuance of an Order of Protection and Motion for Issuance of Permanent No Contact Order, etc. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 06/05/2017. (ek)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HGNG

Civ. No. 16-06777 (KM)(JBC)
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

V.

SUPERIOR COURT OF HUDSON
COUNTY, et cii.,
Defendants.

On May 3, 2017, the plaintiffs, Johanna Ong and Dr. Beverley Ong, filed
three motions requesting three forms of relief:
(a) Issuance of order of protection and no-contact order against
Babak Pasdar et al.;
(b) Denial of extensions of time to answer;
(c) Entry of default judgment against all defendants/respondents
for failure to answer the Complaints;
(ECF nos. 28, 29, 30) These three submissions appear to be duplicates, and
they all request all three forms of relief.
The first motion [a] must be denied. Pasdar, et al., are not parties to this
action. They are the plaintiffs’ Jersey City neighbors, with whom they have
been embroiled in a feud since at least 2006. (See exhibits to Complaint, ECF
no. 1) At any rate, the court sees no basis on which it would take jurisdiction
over this purely local dispute. See generally 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 (federal court

jurisdiction based on federal question, e.g., a federal-law cause of action); 28
U.S.C.

§ 1332 (federal court jurisdiction where parties are citizens of separate
I

states and amount in controversy exceeds $75,000).
Motion [b] will be denied as well. The Court routinely grants reasonable
extensions of time to answer, and will not depart from its usual practice.
Motion [cj will likewise be denied. “[T]he entry of a default judgment is
left primarily to the discretion of the district court.” Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732
F.2d 1178, 1180 (3d Cir. 1984) (citing Tozer u. Charles A. Krause Milling Co.,
189 F.2d 242, 244 (3d Cir. 1951)). Because the entry of a default judgment
prevents the resolution of claims on the merits, “this court does not favor entry
of defaults and default judgments.” United States v. $55,518.05 in U.S.
Currency, 728 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1984). Among other things, the Court
must be satisfied that the “unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of
action” so that default judgment would be permissible. DirecTV, Inc. v. Asher,
03-cv-1969, 2006 WL 680533, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar.14, 2006) (citing Wright,
Miller, Kane, 1OA Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d

§ 2688, at 58—59,

63).
A precondition to a default judgment is entry of default by the clerk. Fed.
R. Civ. p. 55(a). That has not been done.
At any rate, it appears that there has been no default. Before a court may
enter default judgment against a defendant, the plaintiff must have failed to file
an answer or otherwise respond to a properly served complaint within the time
provided by the Federal Rules, which is twenty-one days. See Gold Kist, Inc. u.
Laurinburg Oil Co., Inc., 756 F.2d 14, 18—19 (3d Cir. 1985); Fed. R. Civ. p. 12(a).
Three defendants have timely responded to the complaint. They filed
motions to dismiss (ECF nos. 8, 10), granted by Order and Opinion filed today.
It appears that the rest have requested and been granted extensions of their
time to answer. (ECF nos. 27, 35)

2

ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS this

5th

day of June, 2017

ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motions (ECF nos. 28, 29, 30) are DENIED.

kzLz
Kevin McNulty
United States District Judge

3