THIVEN DESIGN, INCORPORATED v. HAVEN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES

D. New Jersey

THIVEN DESIGN, INCORPORATED v. HAVEN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES

DecidedMarch 2, 2022

Docket1:19-cv-10995

StatusUnknown

This text of THIVEN DESIGN, INCORPORATED v. HAVEN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES (THIVEN DESIGN, INCORPORATED v. HAVEN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

THIVEN DESIGN, INCORPORATED v. HAVEN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES, (D.N.J. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KITCHEN & ASSOCIATES SERVICES, 1:19-cv-10995 INC., ORDER Plaintiff,

v.

HAVEN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES,

Defendants.

O’HEARN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kitchen & Associates Services, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 92). This Court dismissed Plaintiff’s prior Motion for Default Judgment—which was not supported by a brief—without prejudice on February 24, 2022, because it did not comply with the Local Civil Rules. (ECF No. 91). The present Motion is again not accompanied by a brief, but instead by a Statement in Lieu of Brief. (ECF No. 92-2). Having reviewed the Statement, as well as Plaintiff’s concurrently-filed Affidavit of Counsel (ECF No. 92-1), the Court finds that they are insufficient for the Court’s consideration of this Motion. While it may be true that “the Motion does not present any unusual or complex questions of law,” (ECF No. 92-1), it does require the Court’s careful analysis of the relevant facts and law with respect to the appropriateness of default judgment under the applicable three-factor test. E.g., United States v. Thompson, No. 16-00857, 2017 WL 3634096, at *2 (D.N.J. July 20, 2017). As such, the Court finds a brief is necessary. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion will again be dismissed without prejudice so that Plaintiff may refile an appropriate motion accompanied by a brief in accordance with Local Civil Rule 7.2 that analyzes the relevant facts and applicable law. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY on this 1st day of March , 2022, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 92) is ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff may refile an appropriate motion supported by a brief.

/s/ Christine P. O’Hearn CHRISTINE P. O’HEARN United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KITCHEN & ASSOCIATES SERVICES, 1:19-cv-10995 INC., ORDER Plaintiff,

v.

HAVEN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES,

Defendants.

O’HEARN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kitchen & Associates Services, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 92). This Court dismissed Plaintiff’s prior Motion for Default Judgment—which was not supported by a brief—without prejudice on February 24, 2022, because it did not comply with the Local Civil Rules. (ECF No. 91). The present Motion is again not accompanied by a brief, but instead by a Statement in Lieu of Brief. (ECF No. 92-2). Having reviewed the Statement, as well as Plaintiff’s concurrently-filed Affidavit of Counsel (ECF No. 92-1), the Court finds that they are insufficient for the Court’s consideration of this Motion. While it may be true that “the Motion does not present any unusual or complex questions of law,” (ECF No. 92-1), it does require the Court’s careful analysis of the relevant facts and law with respect to the appropriateness of default judgment under the applicable three-factor test. E.g., United States v. Thompson, No. 16-00857, 2017 WL 3634096, at *2 (D.N.J. July 20, 2017). As such, the Court finds a brief is necessary. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion will again be dismissed without prejudice so that Plaintiff may refile an appropriate motion accompanied by a brief in accordance with Local Civil Rule 7.2 that analyzes the relevant facts and applicable law. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY on this 1st day of March , 2022, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 92) is ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff may refile an appropriate motion supported by a brief.

/s/ Christine P. O’Hearn CHRISTINE P. O’HEARN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

THIVEN DESIGN, INCORPORATED v. HAVEN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thiven-design-incorporated-v-haven-campus-communities-njd-2022.