GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO. et al v. PORETSKAYA et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying w/out prejudice 35 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 9/14/17. (DD, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE
CO. et at,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 16-08448

PORETSKAYA et al,

ORDER

Defendants.

John Michael Vazguez, U.S.D.J.

This comes before the Court by way of Plaintiffs unopposed Motion for Default
Judgment as to Defendant Grigory Shtender. (D.E. 35); and it
APPEARING that Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment was initially filed as to six

defendants, three of whom have since been dismissed from the case. D.E. 50. Two of the remaining
defendants were addressed in an order vacating the order of default as to the two defendants (D.E.
46), each of whom have subsequently filed an Answer. D.E. 47; and it
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. v. China
Nat ‘1 Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 842, 849 (D.N.J. 2008); see also

1OA Charles A. Wright et al, Fed. Prac. & Proc.

§ 2690 (3d ed. 2015) (noting that when several

defendants have closely related defenses “entry of judgment also should await an adjudication of
the liability of nondefaulting defendants”). The entry of default is deferred 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 WL 54676, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 5,
2016) (denying motion for default judgment where allegations against defaulting and nondefaulting defendants were identical); and it
APPEARING that Plaintiffs motion now only applies to Defendant Grigory Shtender, the
Court in keeping with the preferred practice of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will not grant
default judgment until the action is resolved as to the remaining defendants.
For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 14th day of September, 2017, hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment as to Grigory Shtender, D.E. 35,
is DENIED without prejudice.

John Michael Vazquez, U.S.).J.

2