Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Goboori v. Scarola

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 25, 2019

MURALI GOBOORI, Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH SCAROLA, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          Michael A. Shipp United States District Judge

         This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Murali Goboori's ("Plaintiff) "Motion for Entry of Default and Schedule Proof Hearing"[1] ("Motion") against Defendants Joseph Scarola ("Mr. Scarola") and Bombay Amusement, Inc. ("Bombay") (collectively, "Defendants"). (ECF No. 7.) Defendants failed to appear in this matter.

         "[W]hen 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). In addition,

[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 otherwise obtain."

D 'Onofrio, 430 F.Supp.2d at 438 (citing Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2005)).

         Federal 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. 310, 316(1945)).

         With respect to jurisdiction in the present matter, Plaintiff alleged:

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, 000.00.
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. ยง 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.