HIGHLAND CAPITAL CORPORATION v. PASTO et al, No. 2:2019cv14282 - Document 111 (D.N.J. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Evelyn Padin on 12/16/2022. (dam)

Download PDF

HIGHLAND CAPITAL CORPORATION v. PASTO et al Doc. 111 Case 2:19-cv-14282-EP-ESK Document 111 Filed 12/16/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1963 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY HIGHLAND CAPITAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 19-14282 (EP) (ESK) v. OPINION MATTHEW E. PASTO, et al., Defendants. PADIN, District Judge. This Court adopts the background detailed in its October 11, 2022 Opinion (D.E. 105, the ). But b Matthew E. Pasto, M.D. and Matthew E. Pasto (collectively medical equipment financing contracts. Pasto filed a third-party Complaint against his former business associate, James Drury , alleging that those Third-Party Defendants conspired to defraud him. , resolving every claim but one: third-party claim against Martha. The Clerk of Court entered a default against Martha on September 7, 2021 after Pasto served Martha,1 but Pasto had not yet moved for default judgment. Opinion at 1, n.1; see unnumbered D.E. at 9/7/21. Pasto has now moved for default judgment, D.E. 110-1. The motion is unopposed. Because the allegations against Martha are vague and unsupported, the Court will DENY the motion without prejudice. 1 but that Martha nevertheless failed to appear. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-14282-EP-ESK Document 111 Filed 12/16/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 1964 Plaintiffs moving for default judgment but may supplement them with affidavits or evidence if available. Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2005). facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does not admit conclusions of Cong. Hunger Ctr. v. Gurey, 308 F. Supp. 3d 223, 227-28 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting 10A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2688.1 (4th ed.)). defendant s failure to appear and the Clerk subsequent entry of default against it do not automatically entitle plaintiff to a default judgment. Indeed, a default is not an absolute confession by the defendant of his liability and of the plaintiff Harris v. U.S. Dep t of Just., 600 F. Supp. 2d 129, 136 (D.D.C. 2009) (cleaned up) (quoting Jackson v. Correctional Corp. of Am., 564 F. Supp. 2d 22, 26-27 (D.D.C. 2008)). pon which relief may be granted as to the defendants who have defaulted, default judgment is not Id. at 136 37; see also City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 137 n.23 (2d Cir. 2011) (collecting cases). a motion for default judgment is like United States v. $1,071,251.44 of Funds Associated with Mingzheng Int l Trading Ltd., No. 17-cv-01166, 2018 WL 3949962, at *3 (D.D.C. June 29, 2018) (quoting Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2015)). Courts have, for example, denied default judgement when evidence is presented but is otherwise insufficient to support the claims. See Bryant v. Jackson, No. CIV.A. 13-2823, 2015 WL 3616974, at *3 (D.N.J. June 8, 2015) (holding that defendants would be greatly prejudiced should default judgment be entered against them in the absence of factual evidence of liability and ; TBI Unlimited, LLC v. Clear Cut Lawn Decisions, LLC, No. 1:12-CV-03355, 2016 WL 716874, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2016) Court cannot determine the validity of the alleged 2 Case 2:19-cv-14282-EP-ESK Document 111 Filed 12/16/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 1965 contract here because Plaintiff has not attached the relevant Agreement to its original or amended complaints or its Motion for Default Judgment Sun Nat'l Bank v. Seaford Specilaity Surgery Center, LLC., No. 13 5800 at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2015) (requiring plaintiff seeking default on a breach of contract claim to submit the loan and guaranty agreements at issue)). Here, the Third-Party Complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion. But the Third-Party Complaint blames all Third-Party Defendants collectively, including James and his companies, - Party Defendants or Pasto himself. See D.E. 3. Thus, basis for liability, is not clear from the Third- or this motion. . D.E. 110-1. For example, the affidavit names James as the primary culprit behind the scheme to defraud him, and argues that James is now in crimes). D.E. 110-1 ¶ 13. Pasto alleges th Id. ¶ 3. Id. a three-year legal separation. Id. ¶¶ 8, 13. liability theory, in other words, does not impute fraud to Martha based on her See In re Gauthier, 349 F. App x 943, 945-46 (5th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases imputing fraud from one spouse to another based on agency ). And 3 theory suffers Case 2:19-cv-14282-EP-ESK Document 111 Filed 12/16/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 1966 from another flaw: Pasto has not demonstrated that James, who failure to prosecute, D.E. 64, actually defrauded him, or that specifically to Martha. Accordingly, accompanies this Opinion. Dated: December 16, 2022 __________________ Evelyn Padin, U.S.D.J. 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.