United States of America v. Santana et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION - For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the United States' Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Dentalcrafts Masters, LLC (Doc. 15). Dentalcraft Masters LLC will not have an interest in the real property located at 1024 Peace Street, Hazle Township, PA 18202 and will take nothing in this action.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 4/26/17. (jfg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff
v.
3:16·CV·1478
(JUDGE MARIANI)
CHRISTIAN F. SANTANA, et al.
Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Presently before the Court is the United States' Motion for Default Judgment Against
Defendant Dentalcrafis Masters, LLC (Doc. 15). For the reasons discussed below, the
Court will grant the United States' motion.
On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff, the United States of America, filed a Complaint naming as
Defendants Christian F. Santana, Oriza Dotel, Christian L. Santana, the Pennsylvania
Department of Revenue, the Municipal Authority of Hazle Township, and Dentalcrafis
Masters, LLC. (Doc. 1). The civil action was filed "to collect the federal income tax
assessments made against Christian F. Santana and Oriza Dotel and the civil penalty
assessments made against Christian F. Santana; to obtain a judicial determination that
Christian L. Santana is the nominee, alter ego, or transferee of Christian F. Santana; and to
enforce the tax liens of the United States against real property located at 1024 Peace
Street, Hazle Township, Pennsylvania 18202 (the 'Real Property')." (Doc. 1, at 2).1 The
Complaint contains three counts: Reduce Federal Income Tax Assessments to Judgment
(Count I); Reduce Civil Penalty Assessments to Judgment (Count II); and Foreclosure of the
Federal Tax Liens Against the Real Property (Count III). (See generally, Doc. 1).
The record demonstrates that summons were returned executed as to each
defendant, with the exception of the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (Docs. 5-9), but
no attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of any defendant nor has any defendant
filed a pleading or performed any other action to otherwise defend the case. Thus, on
November 1, 2016, Plaintiff 'filed a Request to Enter Default Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(a) against Christian F. Santana, Oriza Dotel, Christian L. Santana, and Dentalcrafts
Masters, LLC (Doc. 10). The Clerk of Court entered default against these defendants on
November 14, 2016. (Doc. 11).
The Clerk of Court having entered default, the United States filed a Motion for Default
Judgment Against Defendant Dentalcrafts Masters, LLC (hereinafter "Dentalcrafts") on March
23,2017 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[w]hen a party against whom a
judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that
failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default". Fed. R.
1 The final four defendants, Christian L. Santana, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, the
Municipal Authority of Hazle Township, and Dentalcrafts Masters, LLC, were named because they may
claim an interest in the Real Property. (See Doc. 1, at mr 6-9).
2
Civ. P. 55(a). Upon the party's request, the clerk of court may then enter default judgment,
but only if the claim is for a sum certain or one that can be made certain by computation, the
defendant has made no appearance, and the defendant is not a minor or incompetent. Id.
at 55(b)(1). In all other cases, the party seeking a default judgment must make an
application to the court. Id. at 55(b)(2).
Although the entry of default judgment is "left primarily to the discretion of the district
court", the discretion is not limitless given that cases should "be disposed of on the merits
whenever practicable." Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178, 1180-1181 (3d Cir. 1984).
"Where acourt enters a default judgment, 'the factual allegations of the complaint, except
those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true."' DIRECTV, Inc.
F.3d 162, 165 n. 6 (quoting Comdyne I, Inc.
V.
V.
Pepe, 431
Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990)).
In determining whether to grant a motion for default judgment, a Court must consider
three factors: "(1) prejudice to the plaintiff if default is denied, (2) whether the defendant
appears to have a litigable defense, and (3) whether defendant's delay is due to culpable
conduct." Chamberlain
V.
Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing United States
v. $55,518.05 in U.S. Currency, 728 F.2d 192, 195 (3d Cir. 1984)).
III. ANALYSIS
While the Motion for Default Judgment by the United States and its Memorandum in
Support of its Motion (Docs. 15, 16) do not set forth the standard for default judgment or
apply that standard to the facts concerning Defendant Dentalcrafts, the United States has,
,
,f
3
nevertheless, satis'fied all of the requirements necessary to obtain a default judgment
against this Defendant.
Here, the record demonstrates that Defendant Dentalcrafts was personally served on
July 22,2016. (Doc. 9). Since that time, Defendant has failed to file any pleading or
perform any other action to otherwise defend the case. The Clerk of Court entered default
against this defendant on November 14, 2016. (Doc. 11).
With respect to the prejudice to the United States if default is denied, this factor
weighs in favor of the Government. Absent the default judgment, the United States will be
faced with an indefinite delay in the adjudication of its claims, and uncertainty as to what (if
anything), and when (if at all), Dentalcrafts may assert with respect to a possible interest in
the Real Property. The United States is further left with no alternative means to assert its
claim against the defaulting party and ensure that Dentalcrafts will not later attempt to assert
an interest in the Real Property. As the government seeks to enforce its tax liens against
the Real Property, for which Dentalcrafts may claim an interest, the government would be
prejudiced if the defaulted Defendant remained silent only to possibly assert an interest in
the Real Property at a later stage in the litigation.
As to whether the defendant appears to have a litigable defense, this factor also
weighs in favor of the plaintiff. "The showing of a meritorious defense is accomplished when
'allegations of defendant's answer, if established on trial, would constitute a complete
defense to the action.'" $55,518.05 in U.S. Currency, 728 F.2d at 195 (citing Tozer v. Charles
A. Krause Milling Co., 189 F.2d 242, 244 (3d Cir. 1951); Farnese v. Bagnasco, 687 F.2d 761,
4
764 (3d Cir. 1982)). In the present action, Dentalcrafts has not filed an answer or performed
any other action to defend the case or set forth any meritorious defenses and this Court is not
aware of one or more possible defenses which may constitute acomplete defense here.
The third factor, whether defendant's delay is due to culpable conduct, also weighs
in favor of the United States. "In this context culpable conduct means action taken willfully
or in bad faith." Gross v. Stereo Component Sys., Inc., 700 F.2d 120, 123-24 (3d Cir. 1983).
Although the Court is reluctant to attribute bad faith to the defaulting defendant, Dentalcrafts
has been on notice of this action since, at latest, July 22,2016, when it was personally
served with the Summons and the Complaint. (See Doc. 9). Thus, Dentalcrafts has failed
to respond or take any other action to defend this lawsuit for over 8 months. At minimum,
this lack of action amounts to deliberate and willful conduct.
Therefore, default judgment will be entered against Dentalcrafts Masters, LLC.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the United States' Motion for Default
Judgment Against Defendant Dentalcrafts Masters, LLC (Doc. 15). Dentalcraft Masters LLC
will not have an interest in the real property located at 1024 Peace Street, Hazle Township,
PA 18202 and will take nothing in this action.
5
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?