XPEL, INC. v. DOPE TINTINGS LLC

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: February 6, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-07684
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

XPEL, INC., HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS

Plaintiff, Civil Action

No. 1:24-cv-07684-KMW-EAP v.

DOPE TINTINGS, LLC,

ORDER Defendant.

WHEREAS, on July 10, 2024, plaintiff XPEL, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed its Complaint in this action against defendant Dope Tintings, LLC (“Defendant”) (ECF No. 1); and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, Defendant was served with copies of the Complaint and Summons (ECF Nos. 6, 9); and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2024, the Clerk of Court, at Plaintiff’s request, entered default against Defendant for failure to plead or otherwise defend (ECF No. 12); and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2024, counsel for Defendant––without entering an appearance on Defendant’s behalf––informed the Court that Defendant was attempting to retain counsel to defend it in this matter (ECF No. 13); and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) (ECF No. 15); and WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, Defendant’s non-attorney agent, Ricardo Ranger, filed a Cross-Motion to Vacate Default, which also seeks an extension of time within which to obtain legal counsel and respond to the Complaint (ECF No. 17); and WHEREAS, the Court having considered the pending Motions (ECF Nos. 15, 17), and finding good cause to enlarge the time within which Defendant may respond to the Complaint; IT IS this 6" day of February 2025 hereby ORDERED as follows:

A) The Clerk of Court’s prior entry of default against Defendant is VACATED.|! B) Defendant shall respond to the Complaint on or before March 7, 2025. However, Mr. Ranger is advised that business entities may not appear pro se and may not otherwise be represented by anyone who is not licensed to practice law.” As such, any response to the Complaint submitted on Defendant’s behalf must be filed by a licensed attorney admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction. C) Defendant’s Cross-Motion to Set Aside Default (ECF No. 17) is DENIED and rejected as an improper submission. D) Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 15) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to seeking the entry of default and renewing its Motion in the future, should Defendant fail to respond to the Complaint as ordered herein. E) Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on Defendant within three days of its entry.

KAREN M. WILLIAMS U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

| See Feliz v. Kintock Grp., 297 F. App’x 131, 137 (3d Cir. 2008) (recognizing authority of district courts to sua sponte set aside entries of default for good cause). > See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (providing that a party may proceed in federal court “personally or by counsel”); see also Colony Ins. Co. v. Kwasnik, Kanowitz & Assocs., P.C., 288 F.R.D. 340, 342 n.2 (D.N.J. 2012).