ROH v. SAWANT et al
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING 33 Motion for Default Judgment without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for default judgment as to the Defendant Companies at the conclusion of the case against Sawant, the appearing party. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 11/5/2014. (kas, )
Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SAMUEL ROH,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 13-2251 (MAS) (TJB)
v.
SUNEEL SAWANT, et al.,
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on the motion for default judgment by Plaintiff Samuel
Roh ("Plaintiff') as to ATI Holding ("ATI") and Advanced Technologies International Corp.
("ATIC"). (Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. 33.) According to the Complaint, Defendant Suneel Sawant
("Sawant") is the founder and CEO of ATI and ATIC (collectively, "Defendant Companies").
(Am. Compl.
if 7, ECF No. 15.) Sawant has appeared in this matter, albeit belatedly. 1 The
Defendant Companies failed to appear and have not opposed the present motion.
"[D]efaultjudgment is left primarily to the discretion of the district court." Hritz v. Woma
Corp., 732 F.2d 1178, 1180 (3d Cir. 1984) (citing Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 189
F.2d 242, 244 (3d Cir. 1951)). Notably, it is preferable that "cases be disposed of on the merits
whenever practicable." Id. at 1181 (citations omitted). While liability will be established by entry
of default if it is well-pled in the complaint, "a judgment of liability should not be entered against
a defaulting party alleged to be jointly liable, until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to
1
On June 14, 2013, the Clerk entered default against Sawant for failure to plead or otherwise
defend. On May 22, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for default judgment and vacated
the entry of default as to Sawant. (ECF No. 34.)
all defendants." Figueroa v. Image Rent a Car, Inc., No. 09-1730, 2010 WL 3894356, at *2 (M.D.
Fla. Sept. 10, 2010) (citingFrow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872)). According to the Third
Circuit,
Frow undoubtedly stands for the proposition that in certain circumstances it is
inappropriate to enter a default judgment against one defendant when other
defendants in the same case have prevailed. Unfortunately, the Court's opinion does
not identify those specific circumstances. However, we believe that Frow stands
for the proposition that if at trial facts are proved that exonerate certain defendants
and that as a matter oflogic preclude the liability of another defendant, the plaintiff
should be collaterally estopped from obtaining a judgment against the latter
defendant, even though it failed to participate in the proceeding in which the
exculpatory facts were proved.
Farzetta v. Turner &Newall, Ltd., 797 F.2d 151, 154 (3d Cir. 1986). InFarzetta, the Third Circuit
also noted that the Supreme Court in Frow did not "detail[] the relationship between Frow and his
co-defendants (Were they all accused of the exact same acts?, Were they linked within a corporate
structure?)." Id. at 154 n.2 (emphasis added).
According to the Fourth Circuit, the holding in Frow includes cases in which liability of
multiple defendants is joint and several. See Richardson v. Bostick, No. 11-3045, 2013 WL
3166398, at *3 (E.D.N.C. June 20, 2013) (citing United States ex rel. Hudson v. Peerless Ins. Co.,
374 F.2d 942, 944 (4th Cir. 1967) ("Although Frow was a case of joint liability, we think the
procedure established for multiple defendants by Rule 54(b) is strikingly similar and applicable
not only to situations of joint liability but to those where the liability is joint and/or several.")).
Here, the case has not been adjudicated with regard to all defendants and is currently
proceeding against co-defendant Sawant. Moreover, the complaint clearly links Sawant within the
same corporate structure as the defaulting corporate entities. As such, the Court finds good cause
to deny Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, without prejudice, pending resolution of the
underlying proceedings with Sawant. Based on the foregoing, and for other good cause shown,
2
IT IS on this
5th day
ofNovember, 2014, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is denied without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for default judgment as to the Defendant
Companies at the conclusion of the case against Sawant, the appearing party.
2
s/ Michael A. Shipp
MICHAEL A. SHIPP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Plaintiff's renewed motion papers must include a legal brief pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7 .1 (d).
3
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?