Trinkhaus v. TGI Tours Inc.

Background

Nico Trinkhaus sued TGI Tours, Inc. and later sought a default judgment—a judgment entered when a defendant does not defend the case. The complaint was filed on March 14, 2020. On September 8, 2021, Plaintiff’s replacement counsel filed proof stating that TGI Tours had been served through its registered agent in New Jersey. The clerk then entered a certificate of default. On January 17, 2022, Trinkhaus moved for default judgment and requested $5,000 in statutory damages under the Copyright Act, $315 in attorney fees, and $400 in court filing fees. Plaintiff also filed a certificate stating that service had been made by U.S. Mail.

The opinion notes that the action was originally brought by Richard Liebowitz of Liebowitz Law Firm, PLLC. It states that Liebowitz had been sanctioned by Judge Jesse Furman and that the complaint was filed and served while Liebowitz was under a suspension order. On September 8, 2021, James Freeman, also of that firm, appeared as replacement counsel.

Legal standard

The court explained that entry of default by the clerk does not automatically require entry of a default judgment. The court must consider liability, equitable considerations—whether the circumstances fairly support the requested judgment—and damages. Default-judgment decisions are within the district court’s discretion. The court also may assure itself that it has personal jurisdiction, meaning legal authority over the defendant, before entering a judgment against a defendant who has not appeared.

Reasons for the ruling

The court held that equitable considerations favored denying the motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(1) requires proof of service to be filed within a reasonable time after service. The court found that the approximately 18-month delay was not reasonable because it was substantial and Plaintiff offered no explanation. The court also considered counsel’s conduct disruptive of ordinary court procedures.

The court separately found that Plaintiff had not provided enough facts to establish personal jurisdiction over TGI Tours. Plaintiff alleged only, in the alternative, that TGI Tours resided or transacted business in the district. The court found that conclusory allegation insufficient to show that jurisdiction existed under the applicable statute and the Constitution.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, citing both the procedural concerns and the preference for deciding cases on their merits rather than by default. It terminated ECF No. 10. The court ordered that any motion by Plaintiff to allow the action to continue be filed by February 28, 2022, and stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal.