MA et al v. CHEF JON'S AUTHENTIC CHINESE CUISINE et al

Filing 13

LETTER ORDER Denying 9 MOTION for Default Judgment as to by QINGWEI MA, QUN ZHU, without prejudice and permits Plaintiff to move again within thirty days of this Order, in compliance with all local Rules and with a brief in compliance with the Court's 7/25/2018 Order and this Order, etc. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 3/27/2019. (JB,)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHAMBERS OF

MARTIN LUTHER KING
COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
ROOM 5076
NEWARK, NJ 07101
973-297-4887

ESTHER SALAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

March 27, 2019

LETTER ORDER

Re:

Ma v. Chef Jon’s Authentic Chinese Cuisine, et al.
Civil Action No. 17-7379 (ES) (JAD)

Dear Counsel:
“On November 28, 2017, the Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant Chef Jon’s
Authentic Chinese Cuisine in this action.” (D.E. No. 8 at 1). On July 25, 2018, the Court
“order[ed] Plaintiffs to submit a brief . . . in support of the[ir then-forthcoming] default-judgment
motion—which specifically addresses each of the [default judgment] factors [identified in the
Court’s Order] in an organized, easy-to-read format . . . .” (See id. at 2).
On August 1, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their default judgment motion. (D.E. No. 9). But
Plaintiffs’ brief in support of the motion, with the exception of a discussion of damages, failed to
address the default judgment factors as ordered by the Court. (See generally id.).
It is not the “responsibility of . . . this Court to make the parties’ arguments for them.” See
Sang Geoul Lee v. Won Il Park, 720 F. App’x 663, 666 (3d Cir. 2017). Furthermore, “entry of a
default judgment is an extreme sanction,” Mrs. Ressler’s Food Prods. v. KZY Logistics LLC, 675
Fed. Appx. 136, 137 (3d Cir. 2017), and “is left primarily to the discretion of the district court,”
Alpine Fresh, Inc. v. Jala Trucking Corp., 181 F. Supp. 3d 250, 258 (D.N.J. 2016). Accordingly,
the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, without prejudice, and permits
Plaintiffs to move again within thirty days of this Order, in compliance with all Local Rules,
and with a brief in compliance with the Court’s July 25, 2018 Order and this Order. (See D.E.
No. 8). Failure to so move may result in a denial with prejudice or the closing of this case.
Additionally, in their next brief, Plaintiffs are ordered to address specifically the following
issues pertaining to damages and whether these issues affect the relief requested by Plaintiffs:
•

Whether “a plaintiff who prevails on his FLSA claim cannot receive duplicative damages
for his identical NJWHL claim,” see, e.g., Qu Wang v. Fu Leen Meng Rest. Ltd. Liab. Co.,
No. 16-8772, 2018 WL 1027446, at *5 (D.N.J. Feb. 23, 2018); and

•

Whether “the NJWHL does not provide for liquidated damages,” see, e.g., Ferreras v. Am.
Airlines, Inc., No. 16-2427, 2017 WL 1156737, at *4 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2017).
The Clerk of Court must TERMINATE Docket Entry Number 9.

SO ORDERED.
s/Esther Salas
Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.

2