Unibank for Savings v. 999 Private Jet, LLC

D. Massachusetts

Unibank for Savings v. 999 Private Jet, LLC

DecidedJune 30, 2022

Docket4:18-cv-40134

StatusUnknown

This text of Unibank for Savings v. 999 Private Jet, LLC (Unibank for Savings v. 999 Private Jet, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Unibank for Savings v. 999 Private Jet, LLC, (D. Mass. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS _______________________________________ ) UNIBANK FOR SAVINGS, ) ) CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, ) NO. 4:18-40134-TSH ) v. ) ) 999 PRIVATE JET, LLC, ELINA ) SARGSYAN, and EDGAR SARGSYAN, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ )

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Docket Nos. 68, 69, 72)

June 30, 2022

HILLMAN, D.J.

In August 2018, Unibank for Savings (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against 999 Private Jet, LLC, Elina Sargsyan, and Edgar Sargsyan (collectively, “Defendants”) for breach of contract. To date, Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s complaint or otherwise appeared in the action. Accordingly, the Clerk has entered Defendants’ default, and Plaintiff has filed motions for default judgment. (Docket Nos. 68, 69, 72). A court may grant a default judgment without a hearing when “[the] court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, the allegations in the complaint state a specific, cognizable claim for relief, and the defaulted party had fair notice of its opportunity to object.” In re The Home Restaurants, Inc., 285 F.3d 111, 114 (1st Cir. 2002). Here, the Court has diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and personal jurisdiction over Defendants, see Precision Etchings & Findings, Inc. v. LGP Gem, Ltd., 953 F.2d 21, 23 (1st Cir. 1992) (noting that personal jurisdiction can be established by proper service of process). The complaint states a specific, cognizable claim for relief: Defendants executed a promissory note in favor of Plaintiff; thereafter, Defendants failed to make required monthly payments under the note. See Bose Corp. v. Ejaz, 732 F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 2013) (setting forth elements of breach of contract claim under Massachusetts law). And Defendants had ample

time to appear and object; they were served with the complaint in August 2018, and, more recently, Plaintiff’s counsel certified that paper copies of the motions for default judgment would be sent to Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment are granted.

SO ORDERED /s/ Timothy S. Hillman TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS _______________________________________ ) UNIBANK FOR SAVINGS, ) ) CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, ) NO. 4:18-40134-TSH ) v. ) ) 999 PRIVATE JET, LLC, ELINA ) SARGSYAN, and EDGAR SARGSYAN, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ )

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Docket Nos. 68, 69, 72)

June 30, 2022

HILLMAN, D.J.

In August 2018, Unibank for Savings (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against 999 Private Jet, LLC, Elina Sargsyan, and Edgar Sargsyan (collectively, “Defendants”) for breach of contract. To date, Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s complaint or otherwise appeared in the action. Accordingly, the Clerk has entered Defendants’ default, and Plaintiff has filed motions for default judgment. (Docket Nos. 68, 69, 72). A court may grant a default judgment without a hearing when “[the] court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, the allegations in the complaint state a specific, cognizable claim for relief, and the defaulted party had fair notice of its opportunity to object.” In re The Home Restaurants, Inc., 285 F.3d 111, 114 (1st Cir. 2002). Here, the Court has diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and personal jurisdiction over Defendants, see Precision Etchings & Findings, Inc. v. LGP Gem, Ltd., 953 F.2d 21, 23 (1st Cir. 1992) (noting that personal jurisdiction can be established by proper service of process). The complaint states a specific, cognizable claim for relief: Defendants executed a promissory note in favor of Plaintiff; thereafter, Defendants failed to make required monthly payments under the note. See Bose Corp. v. Ejaz, 732 F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 2013) (setting forth elements of breach of contract claim under Massachusetts law). And Defendants had ample

time to appear and object; they were served with the complaint in August 2018, and, more recently, Plaintiff’s counsel certified that paper copies of the motions for default judgment would be sent to Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment are granted.

SO ORDERED /s/ Timothy S. Hillman TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Unibank for Savings v. 999 Private Jet, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/unibank-for-savings-v-999-private-jet-llc-mad-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack