# TOKIO MARINE AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY v. JAN PACKAGING

> District Court, D. New Jersey · March 3, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10267683

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** March 3, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10267683

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

TOKIO MARINE AMERICA INSURANCE
COMPANY
a/s/o ITOCHU LOGISTICS (USA)
CORPORATION,
Civil No.: 17-cv-7491 (KSH) (CLW)
Plaintiff,

v.
JAN PACKAGING, MCCOLLISTER’S
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
BALA TRANSPORT CORP., KING
TRANSPORT LLC, NOLAN
TRANSPORTATION GROUP, LLC,
COURIER SYSTEMS,

Defendants,

-AND-

JAN PACKAGING,
ORD ER
Defendant-Third Party
Plaintiff,

v.

NOLAN TRANSPORTATION GROUP,
MCCOLLISTER’S TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS, INC., AND MASTHEAD
INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Third-Party Defendants.

WHEREAS plaintiff Tokio Marine America Insurance Company a/s/o Itochu
Logistics (USA) Corporation (“plaintiff”) has moved for default judgment against
defendant Bala Transport Corp. (“Bala”) (D.E. 51); and
WHEREAS default was entered against Bala on January 26, 2018 (D.E. 31); and
WHEREAS “if default is entered against some defendants in a multi-defendant
case, the preferred practice is for the court to withhold granting default judgment until the
action is resolved on its merits against non-defaulting defendants,” Animal Sci. Prods. v.
China Nat’l Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 842, 849 (D.N.J.

2008) (Brown, J.); see also FTC v. Preferred Platinum Services Network, LLC, 2010 WL
3883403, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2010) (Cooper, J.), and
WHEREAS this action involves multiple defendants in addition to Bala, as well
as a third-party complaint and various crossclaims, including crossclaims against Bala
(D.E. 26, 63, 77), and
WHEREAS, entering default judgment against Bala under the circumstances
would be premature,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS, on this 3rd day of March, 2020,
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (D.E. 51) is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
/s/ Katharine S. Hayden
Katharine S. Hayden, U.S.D.J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10267683. Public record. Not legal advice.