NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

__________________________________________ 

MOL (AMERICA) INC., : 

 : Civil Action No. 11-3884 (ES) 

 Plaintiff, : 

 v. : 

 : MEMORANDUM 

CAN-MED LINES (USA), INC., ET AL., : OPINION & ORDER 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

__________________________________________: 

SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE

This action comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff MOL (America) Inc. 

(“MOL”) for default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), and the 

Court, having considered Plaintiff’s submissions, and it appearing that: 

1. On July 6, 2011, Plaintiff commenced this civil action. (D.E. No. 1). 

2. In the complaint, Plaintiff named the following four Defendants: Can-Med Lines 

(USA), Inc., Can-Med Lines (Canada) Inc., Can-Med Maritime, Inc., and Elie 

Ibrahim. (Id.). 

3. On January 10, 2012, Plaintiff served Defendants Can-Med Lines (USA), Inc., CanMed Lines (Canada) Inc., and Can-Med Maritime, Inc. by service to CSC Lawyers 

Incorporating Service. (D.E. No. 6). 

4. Plaintiff submitted no supporting exhibit showing that Defendant Elie Ibrahim 

(“Ibrahim”) was formally served. 

5. The time for answering the Complaint has expired, and Defendants have neither 

been granted an extension of time within which to answer, nor interposed an answer 

or otherwise responded to the Complaint. 

Case 2:11-cv-03884-ES-JAD Document 25 Filed 09/27/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 150
2 

6. On February 21, 2012, MOL sent the Clerk of Court a letter requesting that default 

be entered against three of the four Defendants: Can-Med Lines (USA), Inc., CanMed Lines (Canada) Inc., and Can-Med Maritime, Inc. (D.E. No. 7). 

7. There was no request for entry of default against Ibrahim. 

8. On February 22, 2012, the Clerk of Court entered default as to Can-Med Lines 

(USA), Inc., Can-Med Lines (Canada) Inc., and Can-Med Maritime, Inc. (See D.E. 

dated February 22, 2012). 

9. On February 23, 2012, all four Defendants filed a motion to set aside default. (D.E. 

No. 8). 

10. In that motion, Defendants argued that service of process was insufficient. (See 

D.E. No. 8-2, Ibrahim Cert. ¶ 12). 

11. In response, Plaintiff argued that “[p]ursuant to the FMC, the defendant(s) listed on 

such tariff(s) their official agent for service information for the defendants, to wit: 

CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service in California.” (D.E. No. 9 at 2). But, Plaintiff 

attached no exhibit to support this statement. 

12. On June 29, 2012, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to set aside default and 

ordered Defendants to “file responsive pleadings within 15 days.” (D.E. No. 11). 

13. Defendants, however, failed to file any responsive pleadings. 

14. On August 29, 2012, counsel for all four Defendants filed a motion to withdraw. 

(D.E. No. 17). 

15. On October 11, 2012, the Court granted Defendants’ counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

(D.E. No. 19). 

16. On January 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking default judgment. 

Case 2:11-cv-03884-ES-JAD Document 25 Filed 09/27/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 151
3 

(D.E. No. 22). 

17. “Before granting a default judgment, the Court must determine (1) whether there is 

sufficient proof of service, (2) whether a sufficient cause of action was stated, and 

(3) whether default judgment is proper.” Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund of 

Philadelphia & Vicinity v. Dubin Paper Co., No. 11-7137, 2012 WL 3018062, at *2 

(D.N.J. July 24, 2012) (internal citations omitted). 

18. In the instant motion, Plaintiff did not brief how service of process was sufficiently 

provided to Defendants. (See D.E. No. 22). 

Accordingly, IT IS on this 27th day of September, 2013, 

ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice with 

leave to re-file, and it is further 

ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a new 

motion for default judgment with evidence establishing CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service as 

Defendants’ proper legal agent under 46 C.F.R. § 515.24 at the time of service, or a brief 

explaining why service was otherwise properly effected. Failure to do so will result in a 

dismissal with prejudice, and it is further 

ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall either 

request a dismissal of this action with respect to Ibrahim or properly serve him, and if Plaintiff 

fails to do either, then the Court shall dismiss Ibrahim from this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 4(m). 

 

s/Esther Salas 

 Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.

 

Case 2:11-cv-03884-ES-JAD Document 25 Filed 09/27/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 152