United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Michael A. Shipp United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Murali
Goboori's ("Plaintiff) "Motion for Entry of
Default and Schedule Proof Hearing"
("Motion") against Defendants Joseph Scarola
("Mr. Scarola") and Bombay Amusement, Inc.
("Bombay") (collectively, "Defendants").
(ECF No. 7.) Defendants failed to appear in this matter.
entry of a default judgment is sought against a party who has
failed to plead or otherwise defend, the district court has
an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction both over
the subject matter and the parties." D'Onofrio
v. Il Mattino, 430 F.Supp.2d 431, 437 (E.D. Pa. 2006)
(internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Williams v.
Life Sav. & loan, 802 F.2d 1200, 1203 (10th Cir.
1986)). "A consequence of the entry of a default
judgment is that the factual allegations of the complaint,
except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken
as true." Comdyne I Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d
1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).
[w]hen a court considers personal jurisdiction in the posture
of a default judgment, "although the plaintiffs retain
the burden of proving personal jurisdiction, they can satisfy
that burden with a prima facie showing," and
"may rest their argument on their pleadings, bolstered
by such affidavits and other written materials as they can
D 'Onofrio, 430 F.Supp.2d at 438 (citing
Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2005)).
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1) provides that "[s]erving
a summons . . . establishes personal jurisdiction over a
defendant. . . who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court
of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court
is located[.]" Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)
provides that a district court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over a defendant to the extent permitted by the
state in which the district sits. Pursuant to the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a court may not assert
personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who does
not have "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such
that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice."
Provident Nat'l Bank v. Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass'n, 819 F.2d 434, 437 (3d Cir. 1987) (alteration
in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.
respect to jurisdiction in the present matter, Plaintiff
This [C]ourt has subject matter and personal jurisdiction
based on complete diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. §
1332 as follows:
Goboori, the [P]laintiff, is a New Jersey resident.
Bombay is a New York corporation with its principal place of
business at 3555 Victory Boulevard, Staten Island, New York,
10314. At the same time, Bombay conducts business in the
State of New Jersey and therefore has minimum contacts in the
State of New Jersey. Therefore, this [C]ourt has personal
jurisdiction over Bombay.
The [C]ourt has personal jurisdiction over Scarola because
he, too, is a resident of the State of New York while
maintaining minimum contacts in the State of New Jersey by
virtue of his business dealings both in connection to the
within matter and in connection to other, unrelated matters.
The [P]laintiff s claim for damages exceeds the sum of $75,
Therefore, subject matter and personal jurisdiction and venue
are proper in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) and
(c) because both [D]efendants reside in the State of New York
while the [P]laintiff resides in the State of New Jersey,
both [D]efendants maintain minimum contacts in the State of
New Jersey, a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to ...