Malachowski v. Doheny

Background

Mark Malachowski moved for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) against Romona A. Doheny. He filed the motion before the clerk entered default. The clerk later entered default against Doheny. Doheny did not appear at the hearing on the motion and had not appeared in the case.

The operative complaint asserted five state-law claims and relied on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and the amount in controversy to exceed the statutory threshold. The court also noted that it did not have complete consent from all parties to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

Reasons for Denial

The court denied the motion for default judgment without prejudice. It required any renewed motion to address the matters necessary for a decision on the merits of the default-judgment request.

First, the court said it had to determine subject-matter jurisdiction before entering default judgment. Malachowski’s motion did not address that issue, and the court could not determine clearly from the complaint whether the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was satisfied.

Second, the court had to determine whether it had personal jurisdiction over Doheny. Because Doheny was not a resident of the forum, Malachowski needed to address the legal test for specific personal jurisdiction. His motion did not do so, and the complaint did not clearly establish personal jurisdiction.

Third, the motion did not explain why Malachowski was entitled to judgment on any of the five claims or how the complaint’s allegations supported judgment in his favor.

Fourth, Malachowski sought treble damages—three times the amount he claimed Doheny owed for legal services. The motion did not provide the legal or factual basis for that request, and the basis was not clear from the complaint.

Fifth, Malachowski requested attorney fees incurred in the litigation and prejudgment interest. The motion did not explain why he was entitled to either award. The court also cited the rule that a default judgment cannot differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what the pleadings demand.

Disposition

The court denied Malachowski’s motion without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar him from filing another motion. The court allowed him to file a renewed motion by March 31, 2023, and said he could request an extension if necessary. The order did not decide whether Malachowski would ultimately prevail on his claims or receive damages, fees, or interest.