UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

 CHAMBERS OF 

ESTHER SALAS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

MARTIN LUTHER KING 

COURTHOUSE 

50 WALNUT ST. 

ROOM 5076 

NEWARK, NJ 07101 

973-297-4887

August 17, 2012 

LETTER ORDER 

Re: Shannon Font v. C & J Auto Sales, LLC, et al.

 Civil Action No. 11-3415 (ES) 

Dear counsel: 

 Before the Court is Plaintiff Shannon Font’s (“Font” or “Plaintiff”) unopposed motion for 

default judgment against Defendant Phil & Al’s Auto Center.1

 (See Docket Entry No. 11). The 

Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, as well as the accompanying Declaration of David Font. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) provides this Court with great discretion when 

considering a motion for default judgment. Indeed, Rule 55(b)(2) allows the Court to “conduct 

hearings or make referrals . . . to enter or effectuate [a] judgment [when] it needs to (A) conduct 

an accounting; (B) determine the amount of damages; (C) establish the truth of any allegation by 

evidence; or (D) investigate any other matter.” 

 The Court finds that exercising such discretion is warranted here where the Court 

requires additional evidence to establish the truth of Plaintiff’s allegations and effectuate the 

judgment. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)). Specifically, the Court was not provided with any 

documentation to support Plaintiff’s damage claims. That is, Plaintiff neither provided the Court 

with the bill of sale confirming the price that she allegedly paid to purchase her vehicle; nor did 

Plaintiff provide the Court with any evidence to support the costs associated with repairing the 

vehicle. By contrast, Plaintiff only provided the Court with the following unsubstantiated 

allegation: “[b]ecause of the large amount of wear on the vehicle, repairs have been needed 

almost immediately. These include the following amounts, new engine, $4,379, starter $472, 

and clutch $498. As noted, I have already paid $5,269 for the car.”2

 (Font Decl. ¶ 4). This 

 

1

 Plaintiff has only moved for default judgment against this Defendant. 

2

 The Court makes the following two observations that it would like clarified. First, it is unclear who is the actual 

Plaintiff in this case. For example, the only Plaintiff’s name listed in the caption is Shannon Font; however, in 

David Font’s Declaration he states “I am the plaintiff in the above entitled action.” (Font Decl. ¶ 1). Second, it is 

unclear who actually purchased the vehicle. (Compare Compl. ¶ 1 (“[Shannon Font] is the purchaser of the vehicle) 

with Font Decl. ¶ 2 (“I purchased the vehicle . . . .”)). 

Case 2:11-cv-03415-ES-CLW Document 12 Filed 08/17/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 63
- 2 - 

Court will not, nor should it, speculate as to how Plaintiff arrived at these particular amounts. 

Without more, this Court cannot provide Plaintiff with the relief she seeks. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion, as currently drafted, 

deficient. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. The Court’s 

denial is without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew her motion for default judgment to cure the 

deficiencies outlined above. In the interim, the Clerk of Court shall terminate Docket Entry No. 

11. 

 SO ORDERED. 

s/Esther Salas 

 Esther Salas, U.S.D.J. 

Case 2:11-cv-03415-ES-CLW Document 12 Filed 08/17/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 64