Farm Credit East, ACA v. F/V Market Price (O.N. 1275363), in rem, et al.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

FARM CREDIT EAST, ACA, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 24-8309 (RK) (IBD) v. F/V MARKET PRICE (0O.N. 1275363), in MEMORANDUM ORDER rem, etal., Defendants.

KIRSCH, District Judge THIS MATTER, having come before the Court upon Plaintiff Farm Credit East, ACA’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 26); WHEREAS Plaintiff has not provided a supportive brief—addressing, inter alia, the sufficiency of the Complaint, the relevant default judgment factors, see Depth Charge Marine, LID. v. F/V C. ANN, No. 24-6336, 2025 WL 1088236, at *3 (D.N.J. Apr. 11, 2025), Plaintiff’ s entitlement to costs for publishing its notices, see Fincantieri Marine Repair LLC v. Geysir, No. 22-410, 2023 WL 2217272, at *13 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2023), U.S. All. Fed. Credit Union v. M/V Kamara Fam., No. 20-1733, 2022 WL 607048, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2022), or the seeming discrepancy between the outstanding mortgage amounts identified and sought, (compare Complaint {J 24, with ECF No. 26-2 □ 4)—nor has Plaintiff alternatively provided a statement that no brief is necessary and the reasons therefor, see L. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1), (d)(4); see also Lincoln Harbor Enters., LLC v. M.Y. Diplomat, No. 08-526 (D.N.J. July 16, 2008), ECF No. 6 at 4;

WHEREAS Plaintiff has not asserted or shown, such as by providing Defendants’ United States Coast Guard Certificates of Ownership, that no other persons have an interest in the Defendant Vessels or, if such persons exist, that service was attempted thereon, see Local Admiralty and Maritime Rule “LAMR?”) (c)(3)(a)(3); WHEREAS it appears that Plaintiff served the warrants of arrest but not the Complaint, (compare ECF No. 25-1 95), with LAMR (c)(3)(a)(2); WHEREAS it appears that Plaintiff's published notices did not contain all required elements, (compare ECF No. 25-1 at 5, 8, 11), with LAMR (c)(2)(a), (c)(2)(g), (c)(2)(h); and WHEREAS it appears that Plaintiff intended to attach to its Complaint two Security Agreements “dated May 2, 2018... and April 13, 2021,” (Complaint ¥ 13), but instead attached one Security Agreement dated March 22, 2019, (ECF No. 1-6); IT IS on this 18" day of March, 2026, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 26) is DENIED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall TERMINATE the Motion pending at ECF No. 26. ae os oo 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ».