Gateway One Lending & Finance LLC v. J&K Business Ventures Inc et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying 26 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 10/14/2015. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

GATEWAY ONE LENDING &
FINANCE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
J&K BUSINESS VENTURES, INC.
d/b/a LINDSEY STREET MOTORS,
JAY WILLIAMS, WELDON
BREWER, KELLY A. WILLIAMS,
and SAMMIE J. WILLIAMS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-635-D

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment
[Doc. No. 26] as to Defendants J&K Business Ventures, Inc. and Jay Williams, filed pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Upon consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown its
entitlement to the judgment sought against Defendants J&K Business Ventures, Inc. and Jay
Williams. In addition to punitive damages and attorney’s fees, the Complaint [Doc. No. 1]
seeks to impose joint and several liability in the following amounts: $33,308.88 as against
Defendants Lindsay Street Motors, Jay Williams, and Kelly A. Williams; $34,226.81 as
against Defendants Lindsay Street Motors, Jay Williams, and Weldon Brewer; and
$47,263.87 as against Defendants Lindsay Street Motors, Jay Williams, and Sammie J.
Williams.

Plaintiff does not allege in its Motion a basis for an immediate entry of judgment
as to fewer than all parties, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), and, further, a default judgment at this
time is premature. The Supreme Court has long held “a judgment should not be entered
against a defaulting party who is alleged to be jointly liable, until the matter has been
adjudicated with regard to all defendants.” 10A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, &
Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2690, p. 73 n.3 (3d ed. 1998) (citing
Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 552 (1872)) (emphasis added). Defendants J&K
Business Ventures, Inc. and Jay Williams are in default and foreclosed from defending on
the merits. However, the other Defendants have answered and, therefore, any entry of
judgment against the defaulting Defendants must await adjudication of the claims against all
Defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of October, 2015.

2