Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Benincasa v. Jack Daniels Audi of Upper Saddle River, Inc., 17-6322 (KM)(MAH). (2018)

Court: District Court, D. New Jersey Number: infdco20180221c86 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER KEVIN McNULTY , District Judge . IT APPEARING that the plaintiff has filed a motion (ECF no. 4) for a default judgment; and IT FURTHER APPEARING that the defendant has filed a response (ECF no. 7), and the plaintiff a reply (ECF no. 8); and IT FURTHER APPEARING that counsel entered an appearance for the defendant three days after the Clerk's entry of default (ECF no. 6), and has explained that the default was inadvertent; and IT FURTHER APPEARING that the court is to exercise its d
More

ORDER

IT APPEARING that the plaintiff has filed a motion (ECF no. 4) for a default judgment; and

IT FURTHER APPEARING that the defendant has filed a response (ECF no. 7), and the plaintiff a reply (ECF no. 8); and

IT FURTHER APPEARING that counsel entered an appearance for the defendant three days after the Clerk's entry of default (ECF no. 6), and has explained that the default was inadvertent; and

IT FURTHER APPEARING that the court is to exercise its discretion so as to resolve all doubts in favor of reaching the merits;1 and

IT FURTHER APPEARING that there is no apparent prejudice to the plaintiff, that the defendant's position as to arbitrability has record support, and that counsel's lapse, while discourteous and deserving of criticism, was not seriously culpable;2

ORDERED as follows:

1. The motion for a default judgment (ECF no. 4) is DENIED, and the Clerk's entry of default is vacated.

2. The Court will therefore consider the defendant's cross motion to dismiss and compel arbitration (ECF no. 9). Within seven days after the date of this Order, the parties shall submit affidavits, not to exceed five pages, as to the existence, corporate status, and relationships among Jack Daniels Audi of Upper Saddle River, Inc., Jack Daniels Motors, and any other relevant entities.

FootNotes


1. Gross v. Stereo Component Sys. Inc., 700 F.2d 120, 122 (3d Cir. 1983); Feliciano v. Reliant Tooling Co., 691 F.2d 653, 656 (3d Cir. 1982).
2. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c); Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 256-57 (3d Cir. 2008)
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer