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.

Park v. Prynt Corp.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

September 30, 2019

SUNGHO PARK, Plaintiff,
v.
PRYNT CORPORATION and CLEMENT PERROT, Defendants.

          ORDER

          MADELINE COX ARLEO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of Plaintiff Sungho Park's (“Park”) unopposed application for an entry of default judgment[1] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), ECF No. 6, against Defendants Prynt Corporation (“Prynt”) and Clement Perrot (“Perrot, ” or, together with Prynt, “Defendants”);

         and it appearing that this action arises out of a breach of an agreement between Prynt, a supplier of portable printing devices, and Park, a business executive and distributor of those devices, see Compl. ¶¶ 5-33; Park Decl. ¶¶ 3-15, ECF No. 6.2;

         and it appearing that in November or December 2016, Perrot offered Plaintiff an exclusive distributorship for the territory of South Korea, which was subsequently confirmed via email on or about August 11, 2017, see Compl. ¶¶ 7-8; ECF No. 6.4 at 1 (“We gave you exclusivity for that market”);

         and it appearing that, after this agreement, Plaintiff organized an entity called MCNS Co., LTD (“MCNS”) to distribute Prynt products in South Korea and incurred business expenses including hiring staff, creating a website, and undertaking marketing activities, Compl. ¶¶ 10, 12-13;

         and it appearing that Prynt and MCNS entered a written agreement in June 2017, wherein Prynt agreed to supply products to MCNS, and Prynt never supplied those products, Compl. ¶ 11; Park Decl. ¶ 7;

         and it appearing that in March 2018, Defendants told Plaintiff that they had contracted with another entity to distribute Prynt products in South Korea, thereby terminating Plaintiff's exclusivity in that country, Compl ¶¶ 14-15; and it appearing that Plaintiff incurred $329, 400 in costs for his work under the Prynt contract, as calculated based on the number of hours he worked times his hourly rate, see ECF No. 6.5;

         and it appearing that on October 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants, asserting claims of fraud in the inducement of the contract, breach of the exclusivity term of the contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, Compl. ¶¶ 20-33.

         and it appearing that Defendants have failed to answer the Complaint or otherwise respond as of the date of this Order;

         and it appearing that Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Default Judgment seeking judgment against Defendants;

         and it appearing that default judgment may only be entered against a properly-served defendant, see E.A. Sween Co., Inc. v. Deli Express of Tenafly, LLC, 19 F.Supp.3d 560, 567 (D.N.J. 2014);

         and it appearing that the docket reflects service upon all Defendants, ECF Nos. 4, 5;

         and it appearing that a district court must determine whether it has jurisdiction over the action and the parties before entering a default judgment, see Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Nat'l Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp., 596 F.Supp.2d 842, 848 (D.N.J. 2008);

         and it appearing that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter because there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, see Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. ...


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.