Home Dynamix, LLC v. Silk Road Trade, LLC, 17-5203 (ES) (JAD). (2018)
Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
Number: infdco20180703c69
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2018
Summary: LETTER ORDER ESTHER SALAS , District Judge . Dear Counsel: On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff requested that the Clerk of Court enter default against Defendants Silk Road Trade LLC, Omer Yusufoglu, and Bekmez International Inc. (D.E. No. 9). The next day, the Clerk of Court entered default against all Defendants, and the Court issued a Letter Order setting forth the various factors Plaintiff must address in support of any subsequent motion for default judgment ( see D.E. No. 10). In particula
Summary: LETTER ORDER ESTHER SALAS , District Judge . Dear Counsel: On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff requested that the Clerk of Court enter default against Defendants Silk Road Trade LLC, Omer Yusufoglu, and Bekmez International Inc. (D.E. No. 9). The next day, the Clerk of Court entered default against all Defendants, and the Court issued a Letter Order setting forth the various factors Plaintiff must address in support of any subsequent motion for default judgment ( see D.E. No. 10). In particular..
More
LETTER ORDER
ESTHER SALAS, District Judge.
Dear Counsel:
On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff requested that the Clerk of Court enter default against Defendants Silk Road Trade LLC, Omer Yusufoglu, and Bekmez International Inc. (D.E. No. 9). The next day, the Clerk of Court entered default against all Defendants, and the Court issued a Letter Order setting forth the various factors Plaintiff must address in support of any subsequent motion for default judgment (see D.E. No. 10). In particular, the Court instructed Plaintiff to "specifically address[] each of the above factors" if moving for default judgment. (Id. at 2).
On December 21, 2017, Plaintiff moved for default judgment against only Defendant Bekmez International Inc. (D.E. No. 12). Yet Plaintiff's submission in support of its default judgment fails to specifically address each of the factors as directed by the Court's August 23, 2017 Letter Order. (See generally id.).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (D.E. No. 12) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling a motion for default judgment that comports with the Court's previously entered Letter Order (see D.E. No. 10). Moreover, Plaintiff's future submission shall address its intended course of action against Defendants Silk Road Trade LLC and Omer Yusufoglu.
The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE docket entry number 12.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
