GJS PROPERTIES, LLC v. JUNE WAREHOUSING, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

GJS Properties, LLC, Case No, 2:24-cv-04779 Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER V. DENYING THIRD MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT June Warehousing, LLC, Defendant

WILLIAM J, MARTINE, U.S.D.J.: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Third Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 19, and its certification of counsel, ECF No. 21, in which Plaintiff confirms that it has been unable to confirm the identities (and by extension, the state(s) of citizenship) of Defendant LLC’s members. See ECF No, 21 12-13 (acknowledging that Defendant has been unable to discover the identity of Defendant’s members and arguing that the Court should accept jurisdiction “in the interest of justice”). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Before a federal court exercises any governmental power, it has a duty to determine its own jurisdiction to act.” Edgar v. MITE Corp., 547 U.S. 624, 653 (1982) (Stevens, J. concurring in part); see also Reich v. Local 30 Intern. Broth. Of Teamsters, 6 F.3d 978, 982 & n.5 (3d Cir. 1993); Animal Science Prods., Inc. v. China Nat. Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp,, 596 F. Supp. 2d 842 (D.N.J. 2008), Teamsters- Employer Local No. 945 Pension Fund et. al. v. Acme Sanitation Corp., 963 F. Supp. 340 (D.N.J. 1997}. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. Duvall v. Elwood, 336 F.3d 228, 230 n.3 Gd Cir. 2003) (citing Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 n.1 Gd Cir. 2002)). Accordingly, before granting a motion for default judgment, courts in the Third Circuit must first assess whether “plaintiff produced sufficient ... evidence of jurisdiction[.]” Chanel, Inc. v. Matos, 133 F. Supp. 3d 678, 683 (D.N.J. 2015). This Court denied Plaintiff’s second motion for default judgment because it lacked information concerning the citizenship of Defendant’s members and, as such, could not conclude that Plaintiff and Defendant were completely diverse. See ECF No. 17 at 2-3. Despite its apparent diligence, Plaintiff remains unable to confirm the identities (and, by extension, citizenships) of Defendant’s members. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Court continues to lack the authority to adjudicate Plaintiff's motion, and as such the Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 19) is DENIED. The Court notes that Plaintiff remains free to pursue its claims in a court of general jurisdiction (e.g., in state court). It is further ORDERED that the Court will permit Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice, Plaintiff may file its stipulation of voluntary dismissal within the next

30 days. After 30 days, if Plaintiff has not filed its stipulation of dismissal, this matter will be dismissed with prejudice. ff DATE: July LY. 2025 LE Lib fe WILLIA wtih ARTINI, U.S.D.J.