GITTENS v. BONDS

District Court, D. New Jersey·Decided August 6, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-13450·Unknown

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE __________________________________ : DARIUS HEIMER GITTENS, : : Plaintiff, : : Civil No. 19-13450 (RBK/JS) v. : : ORDER WILLIE J. BONDS, et al., : : Defendants. : __________________________________ :

KUGLER, United States District Judge: THIS MATTER coming before the Court upon Plaintiff Darius Heimer Gittens’ Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 17) as to Michael A. Caruso, William S. Charlton, David W. Dilks, Shaun M. Hayes, Stephen E. Hunter, Linda Linen, Todd E. Perry, and Alexander Solanik; and THE COURT NOTING that in order to obtain default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), a plaintiff must first secure an entry of default from the Clerk of Court under Rule 55(a), Allaham v. Naddaf, 635 F. App’x 32, 36 (3d Cir. 2015); and THE COURT NOTING that only after the prerequisite default has been entered by the Clerk of Court may the non-defaulting party move for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), see e.g., Graise v. Marie, No. 12-05232, 2013 WL 1155281 (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2013) (denying plaintiff’s motion for default judgment for failure to first secure an entry of default); and THE COURT OBSERVING that Plaintiff has not secured an entry of default from the Clerk of Court against Caruso, Charlton, Dilks, Hayes, Hunter, Linen, Perry, or Solanik; and THE COURT FINDING that Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements for obtaining a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55; and therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED.

Dated: 08/06/2020 /s/ Robert B. Kugler ROBERT B. KUGLER United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GITTENS v. BONDS, (D.N.J. 2020).

GITTENS v. BONDS (GITTENS v. BONDS) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Milad Allaham v. Fadi Naddaf
635 F. App'x 32 (Third Circuit, 2015)