UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States Securities

and Exchange Commission,

Plaintiff

v. Case No. 07-cv-39-SM

Opinion No. 2013 DNH 066

Hor Chong (David) Boey,

and Jerry A. Shanahan,

Defendants

O R D E R

The government seeks a default judgment against Defendant

Hor Chong (David) Boey, and relief in the nature of a permanent

injunction, disgorgement, civil penalties and an officer and

director bar. Document no. 354. As explained below, the clerk’s

default, entered on January 18, 2008, is a nullity. The motion

for default judgment, therefore, is denied. 

On February 9, 2007, the government filed its original civil

complaint, naming Boey and nine others as defendants. Because

Boey “failed to plead or otherwise respond” to the original

complaint, the clerk of the court entered default against Boey on

January 18, 2008, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) and Local

Rule 55.1. See Doc. No. 122. The clerk’s default order stated

that “[a] damages hearing will be scheduled upon adjudication of

all the remaining claims or parties.” Id. 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 357 Filed 04/25/13 Page 1 of 4
Nine months later, on October 15, 2008, the government

filed its First Amended Complaint, naming Boey as a defendant,

along with the nine others named in the original complaint.1

 See

doc. no. 150. The amended complaint did not incorporate the

original complaint by reference, and was served upon Boey’s

attorney-of-record, consistent with federal rules of procedure. 

Boey is now the single remaining defendant in this case.

The amended complaint superceded the original complaint. 

See reasoning of and federal cases collected in TD BankNorth,

N.A. v. Hawkins, 5 A.3d 1042, 1047-48 (Me. 2010). The original

complaint is, therefore, a nullity. The clerk’s default, based

on Boey’s failure to answer or otherwise respond to the original

complaint, which was entered months before the amended complaint

was filed, is likewise a nullity. See id.; see also Winston v.

City of Laurel, 2012 WL 5381346 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 31, 2012)

(“[T]he filing of the Amended Complaint mooted the Clerk’s Entry

of Default.”). The government has never moved for entry of

default against Boey relative to the amended complaint, and none

1 The government carefully specified in its amended

complaint that “no new claims” were being brought against

Defendants Barber, Gagalis, and Kay, because judgment had entered

against them. Doc. no. 150 at 4. Had the government taken the

same approach with respect to Boey, it likely would not be facing

further procedural hurdles.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 357 Filed 04/25/13 Page 2 of 4
has been entered. The government’s motion for default judgment,

therefore, must be denied. See id. 

Under these circumstances, the government has two basic

options: (1) move to dismiss the amended complaint with or

without prejudice as to Boey or (2) file a motion for default

under Rule 55(a) with respect to the amended complaint, and,

subsequently, in compliance with the service requirements of Rule

55(b), file a motion for default judgment and for specific

relief. If the government chooses the second of these options,

it shall include in a supporting brief a complete and wellsupported justification for the relief sought, and, particularly,

should show cause why the following relief might be

inappropriate: disgorgement of $29,576.40; no prejudgment

interest; a civil penalty of $120,000; a ten-year officer and

director bar; and no injunction related to future compliance with

existing legal requirements. And, the government should expect a

hearing on damages before any judgment is entered.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

United States District Judge

April 25, 2013

3

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 357 Filed 04/25/13 Page 3 of 4
cc: Peter D. Anderson, Esq.

John R. Baraniak, Jr., Esq.

Conrad W. P. Cascadden, Esq.

William Cintolo, Esq.

Philip G. Cormier, Esq.

Victor W. Dahar, Esq.

Maria R. Durant, Esq.

Nancy J. Gegenheimer, Esq.

Andrew Good, Esq.

Steven M. Gordon, Esq.

Miranda Hooker, Esq.

Leslie J. Hughes, Esq.

Lucy J. Karl, Esq.

William H. Kettlewell, Esq.

John C. Kissinger, Esq.

Diana K. Lloyd, Esq.

James Lux, Esq.

Jeffrey S. Lyons, Esq.

Richard J. McCarthy, Esq.

Peter B. Moores, Esq.

Ann Pauly, Esq.

Michelle R. Peirce, Esq.

James W. Prendergast, Esq.

Michael D. Ramsdell, Esq.

Jeffrey B. Rudman, Esq.

James A. Scoggins, II, Esq.

Jonathan A. Shapiro, Esq.

Kevin E. Sharkey, Esq.

Bruce A. Singal, Esq.

Elizabeth H. Skey, Esq.

Peter A. Spaeth, Esq.

4

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 357 Filed 04/25/13 Page 4 of 4