Dejesus v. Kids Academy, Inc.

          JULIA W. CLARK ARI R. KARPF KARPF KARPF & CERUTTI PC On behalf of Plaintiff

          ORDER

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         WHEREAS this case was brought by Plaintiff Lydia DeJesus on September 12, 2018 against Defendants Kids Academy, Inc. and Goldbil Investment Corp. for their alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; and

         WHEREAS after Defendants were served with Plaintiff's complaint and failed to respond, on December 3, 2018, Plaintiff requested that the Clerk enter default against Defendants; and WHEREAS the Clerk entered default on December 4, 2018; and

         WHEREAS on February 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment; and

         WHEREAS a party seeking default judgment “is not entitled to a default judgment as of a right, ” Franklin v. Nat'l Maritime Union of Am., No. 91-480, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9819, at *3-4 (D.N.J. 1991) (quoting 10 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2685 (1983)), aff'd, 972 F.2d 1331 (3d Cir. 1992); and

         WHEREAS the decision to enter a default judgment is “left primarily to the discretion of the district court, ” Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178, 1180 (3d Cir. 1984); and

         WHEREAS before entering a default judgment the Court must decide whether “the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does not admit mere conclusions of law, ” Chanel v. Gordashevsky, 558 F.Supp.2d 532, 535 (D.N.J. 2008) (citing Directv, Inc. v. Asher, No. 03-1969, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14027, at *3 (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2006)); and

         WHEREAS the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and finds that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is deficient because Plaintiff does not include a brief explaining why she is entitled to default judgment, on what claims she is entitled to default judgment, the elements of those claims and how she has shown each of those elements, the appropriate measure of damages under those claims, and what damages she is entitled to, ^[1] see e.g., Qu Wang v. Fu Leen Meng Restaurant Limited Liability Company, 2018 WL 1027446, at *2 (D.N.J. 2018) (in an employment case, explaining the factors a court must consider in assessing a motion for default judgment); and

         WHEREAS in light of those deficiencies, this Court finds it cannot properly enter default judgment at this time; but WHEREAS this Court finds that those deficiencies may be cured through further briefing;

         THEREFORE, IT IS on this 4th day of June, 2019

         ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [5] be, and the same hereby is, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a new motion for default judgment which addresses the deficiencies noted herein within thirty (30) days of this Order.

---------