1 

U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T 

 D I S T R I C T O F N E W J E R S E Y 

 

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. FEDERAL BLDG. & U.S. COURTHOUSE 

 50 WALNUT STREET, P.O. BOX 419 

 NEWARK, NJ 07101-0419 

 (973) 645-6340 

WILLIAM J. MARTINI

 JUDGE 

 LETTER OPINION 

January 13, 2012 

Bryan Paul Couch 

Clyde & Co US LLP 

200 Campus Drive 

Suite 300 

Florham Park, NJ 07932 

(Attorney for Plaintiff)

RE: Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. Platinum Hospitality Group, LLC, et al.

 Civil Action No. 10-06454 (WJM) 

Dear Counsel: 

 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. 

There was no oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. For the reasons set forth below, 

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 The following facts are established by the Complaint, the motion for default 

judgment, and the exhibits attached thereto. Plaintiff is Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. 

(“DIW”). Defendants are Platinum Hospitality Group, LLC (“Platinum”), and its 

principals, Nizar Hemani, Altaf Hemani, Nizar (“Nick”) Hemani, Mohammed Hemani, 

and Nasiruddin Hemani (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff commenced this action on 

December 13, 2010. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff served the Summons and Complaint on 

Defendant Altaf Hemani on December 28, 2010, served Platinum and Nick Hemani on 

December 29, 2010, and served Nizar Hemani on January 11, 2011. See ECF Nos. 5, 10, 

11. It appears that the Summons and Complaint were never served on Nasiruddin 

Hemani or Mohammed Hemani. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on February 22, 

2011. See ECF No. 16. 

Case 2:10-cv-06454-WJM-MF Document 35 Filed 01/13/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 485
2 

On March 8, 2011, the law firm Sonnenblick, Parker & Selvers, P.C. filed an 

Answer to the Amended Complaint on behalf of Platinum, Nizar Hemani, Altaf Hemani, 

Nick Hemani, and Nasiruddin Hemani (the “Five Defendants”). See ECF No. 17. On 

July 20, 2011, this Court granted Sonnenblick, Parker & Selvers, P.C.’s motion to 

withdraw as counsel. See ECF No. 26. Thereafter, Defendants failed to retain substitute 

counsel and repeatedly failed to comply with Court orders. Report and Recommendation 

at 2-3, ECF No. 32. As a result, on October 7, 2011, the Court struck the Answer from 

the record, and the Clerk entered a Default against the Five Defendants pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). See ECF No. 33. Plaintiff filed the instant motion 

for default judgment on November 22, 2011 and served the motion on the Five 

Defendants. See ECF No. 34. No opposition has been filed. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs default. After the Clerk’s entry of 

default pursuant to Rule 55(a), a plaintiff may seek the Court’s entry of default pursuant 

to Rule 55(b)(2). See Doug Brady, Inc. v. N.J. Bldg. Laborers Statewide Funds, 250 

F.R.D. 171, 177 (D.N.J. 2008). “Before imposing the extreme sanction of default, district 

courts must make explicit factual findings as to: (1) whether the party subject to default 

has a meritorious defense, (2) the prejudice suffered by the party seeking default, and (3) 

the culpability of the party subject to default.” Id. (citing Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Sambrick, 

834 F.2d 71, 74 (3d Cir. 1987)). To make these determinations, the Court should accept 

as true the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint, although the Court need not 

accept the moving party’s legal conclusions or allegations relating to the amount of 

damages. Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990); Chanel, Inc. v. 

Gordashevsky, 558 F. Supp. 2d 532, 535-36 (D.N.J. 2008). 

B. Default Judgment is Appropriate With Respect to the Five Defendants 

 After a review of the record, the Court determines that Plaintiff has satisfied the 

requirements for a default judgment with respect to the Five Defendants. The record 

reflects that Platinum, Nizar Hemani, Altaf Hemani, and Nick Hemani were properly 

served with the Summons and Complaint and with the motion for default judgment. See

ECF Nos. 5, 10-11, 34. It appears that Nasiruddin Hemani was not served with the 

Summons and Complaint. However, Nasiruddin Hemani filed an Answer to the 

Complaint and did not object to the timeliness or effectiveness of service under Rule 

12(b)(5). See ECF No. 17. Accordingly, that objection is waived. See Government of 

the Virgin Islands v. Sun Island Car Rentals, Inc., 819 F.2d 430, 433 (3d Cir. 1987) 

(defective service waived if not challenged in first defensive pleading). Nasiruddin 

Hemani was properly served with the motion for default judgment. See ECF No. 34. 

Despite being on notice of the proceedings, none of the Five Defendants have taken any 

Case 2:10-cv-06454-WJM-MF Document 35 Filed 01/13/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 486
3 

actions to defend the litigation since August 1, 2011, when their counsel withdrew from 

the representation. See Report and Recommendation at 2-3. As such, entry of a default 

judgment is appropriate. See Palmer v. Slaughter, No. 99-899, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

22118, 2000 WL 1010261, at *2 (D. Del. July 13, 2000) (When a defendant has “failed to 

answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint, the entry of a default judgment 

against him is appropriate.”). 

An analysis of the Doug Brady factors also compels an entry of default judgment. 

First, the Court finds that there is no basis for the Five Defendants to claim a meritorious 

defense. Plaintiff provided ample evidence that these Defendants entered into a license 

agreement with Plaintiff and subsequently breached that agreement. See Am. Compl. 

Exs. 1-8; Aff. of Suzanne Fenimore (“Fenimore Aff.”), ECF No. 34-3; see also Days Inns 

Worldwide, Inc. v. LT Hospitality, Inc., No. 10-6125, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76459, at 

*5-6 (D.N.J. July 14, 2011). Second, it is clear that Plaintiff has been prejudiced by 

Defendants’ failure to answer, as Plaintiff has incurred additional costs, has been unable 

to move forward with the case, and has been delayed in receiving relief. See Malik v. 

Hannah, 661 F. Supp. 2d 485, 490-91 (D.N.J. 2009). Third, the culpability of 

Defendants is clear where, as here, they have repeatedly failed to comply with court 

orders despite warnings that such a failure would result in sanctions. See Report and 

Recommendation at 2; see also Teamsters Pension Fund of Phila. & Vicinity v. Am. 

Helper, Inc., No. 11-624, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115142, at *10 (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 2011). 

Plaintiff has requested damages totaling $1,265,213.84, comprised of the 

following: 

(1) $321,843.77 in recurring fees (including prejudgment interest); 

(2) $929,884.88 in liquidated damages (including prejudgment interest); and 

(3) $13,485.19 in attorneys’ fees and costs. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to support its 

request for damages pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), and has submitted 

a reasonable request for attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with Local Civil Rules 

54.1 and 54.2. See Fenimore Aff. ¶¶ 29-39; Fenimore Aff. Exs. A, J, and K. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment with respect to the Five 

Defendants. 

C. Default Judgment is Not Appropriate With Respect to Mohammed 

Hemani 

The Court has not been made aware of any evidence that Defendant Mohammed 

Hemani was served with the Summons and Complaint within 120 days after the 

Complaint was filed, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). In fact, it 

appears that Mohammed Hemani was never served with the Summons and Complaint or 

Case 2:10-cv-06454-WJM-MF Document 35 Filed 01/13/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 487
4 

the motion for default judgment. As such, the Court finds that Mohammed Hemani has a 

meritorious defense; namely, insufficient service of process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). 

Accordingly, the motion for default judgment is denied with respect to Mohammed 

Hemani and Plaintiff will be given 30 days from the entry of this Court’s Order to serve 

him with the Summons and Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is GRANTED 

in part, and DENIED in part. Specifically, the motion for default judgment is granted 

with respect to Defendants Platinum, Nizar Hemani, Altaf Hemani, Nick Hemani, and 

Nasiruddin Hemani. Judgment shall be entered against Platinum, Nizar Hemani, Altaf 

Hemani, Nick Hemani, and Nasiruddin Hemani, jointly and severally, for $1,265,213.84. 

The motion for default judgment is denied with respect to Mohammed Hemani. Plaintiff 

shall have 30 days from the entry of this Court’s Order to serve Mohammed Hemani with 

the Summons and Complaint. An Order accompanies this Opinion.

 /s/ William J. Martini 

 WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J. 

Case 2:10-cv-06454-WJM-MF Document 35 Filed 01/13/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 488