United States District Court, D. New Jersey
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.
---------