INTERPOOL, INC. v. AYESH et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 9/27/2016. (eaj)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
INTERPOOL, INC. D/B/A TRAC
INTERMODAL
Plaintiff,
v.
FOUR HORSEMEN, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-2490 (MLC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

THE PLAINTIFF alleges that the defendants Ayeah A. Ayesh, Four Horsemen,
Inc., and A&A Exp, Inc.: (1) used plaintiff’s marine equipment to move maritime cargo
and (2) failed to pay plaintiff the contractual charges for such use, or any other amount.
(See dkt. 1.)1
THE PLAINTIFF requested default in its favor and against the defendants in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 55(a). (See dkt. 20.)
THE CLERK OF THE COURT has entered default in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendants in accordance with Rule 55(a). (See entry following dkt. 20.)

1

The Court will cite to the documents filed on the Electronic Case Filing System (“ECF”) by
referring to the docket entry numbers by the designation of “dkt.” Pincites reference ECF
pagination.

1

THE PLAINTIFF now requests the entry of default judgment pursuant to Rule
55(b)(1) against the defendants.2 (See dkt. 22.) Plaintiff requests that default judgment
be entered against the defendants, jointly and severally, “in the amount of $490,079.59,
plus costs of $164.74 and pre-judgment interest.” (See dkt. 22.) Plaintiff did not provide
any calculation of pre-judgment interest. The proposed orders attached to plaintiff’s
request are inconsistent with plaintiff’s request and identify the damages amount as
“$490,644.33, which includes costs of filing this action and service of process in the
amount of $164.74.” (See dkt. 22-3, 22-4, 22-5.) The proposed orders are silent with
respect to pre-judgment interest. It is not clear to the Court what damages amount
plaintiff is seeking.
THE DEFENDANTS have not opposed the motion, even though the return date
was August 1, 2016. The Court’s independent review of the relevant Westlaw databases
reveals that the defendants do not have pending petitions for bankruptcy protection, and
thus the defendants could have responded to the motion.
THE COURT will decide the motion without oral argument. See L.Civ.R.
78.1(b). The decision to either enter judgment by default or refuse to enter such
judgment rests in the Court’s discretion. See Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178, 1180
(3d Cir. 1984). The Court will deny the motion without prejudice, because it is not clear
to the Court what damages amount plaintiff is seeking. In addition, the Court’s review of

2

The Court notes that plaintiff has not properly moved pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) for entry of
judgment by default in its favor against the defendants. (See dkt. 22.) The Court also directs

plaintiff’s attention to L.Civ.R. 7.1 entitled “Application and Motion Practice.”
2

the supporting papers reveals that plaintiff has failed to fully document the damages and
costs it seeks. Plaintiff has submitted proof of service of process costs only in the amount
of $130.00. (See dkt. 22-2.) Yet, plaintiff has sought $164.74 in costs for that expense
item. The Court will issue an appropriate order.

s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated: September 27, 2016 

3