IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

REBECCA ZERR, Civil No. 22-05243

Plaintiff, v. ORDER HAVEN ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

O’HEARN, District Judge THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 13) (“Motion”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1) and (2) as to Defendant Haven Animal Health Services Corporation (“Haven”) and Russell Howe-Smith. The Court did not hear argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1. WHEREAS, the Court previously entered an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 7) for failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1 and Judge O’Hearn’s judicial preferences (Order, ECF No. 8) and subsequently vacating the entry of Default as to Defendant Mr. Howe-Smith (ECF No. 9); and WHEREAS, Plaintiff thereafter filed a return of service showing personal service on Defendant Mr. Howe-Smith and the Court granted Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Entry of Default against Defendant Mr. Howe-Smith (ECF Nos. 11, 12); and WHEREAS, Plaintiff has now filed a Second Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendants Haven and Mr. Howe-Smith; and WHEREAS, “before the Court can enter default judgment, it must find that process was properly served on the Defendant,” Teamsters Pension Fund of Phila. & Vicinity v. Am. Helper, Inc.,

, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 2011) (citing Gold Kist, Inc. v. Laurinburg Oil Co., Inc.,

(3d Cir. 1985)), and “the party asserting the validity of service bears the burden of proof on that issue,” Grand Entm’t Grp., Ltd. v. Star Media Sales,

, 488 (3d Cir. 1993); and WHEREAS, once service is made, the “[t]hree factors [that] control whether a default judgment should be granted [are]: (1) prejudice to the plaintiff if default 1s denied, (2) whether the defendant appears to have a litigable defense, and (3) whether defendant’s delay is due to culpable conduct,” Chamberlain v. Giampapa,

(3d Cir. 2000); and WHEREAS, Plaintiff has again failed to include a brief as required by Judge O’Hearn’s judicial preferences! and has thus failed to address the Chamberlain factors; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff has further failed to present any evidence or analysis as to whether she has properly served Defendant Haven; and therefore IT IS on this _2nd_ day of March, 2023, ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file a Motion for Default accompanied by (1) a brief that discusses Chamberlain factors and (2) sufficient factual support and analysis to demonstrate that proper service has been made on Defendant Haven.

a '

United States District Judge

' https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/content/christine-p-ohearn.