Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Matrix Polymers Inc. v. A-E Packaging, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. New York

May 18, 2017

MATRIX POLYMERS INC., Plaintiff,
v.
A-E PACKAGING, INC. d/b/a "Tee Pee Packaging" and/or "Tee Pee Packaging Inc.", CHARLES DEEHAN and ANDREW DEEHAN Defendants.

          PICK & ZABICKI LLP BY: Douglas J. Pick, Esq. Eric C. Zabicki, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff.

          TRENK, DiPASQUALE, DELLA FERRA & SODONO, P.C., BY: Sam Delia Ferra, Jr., Esq., Attorneys for Defendants Charles Deehan and Andrew Deehan.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          LEONARD D. WEXLER United States District Judge.

         Before the Court are Defendants Charles Deehan and Andrew Deehan's (the "Deehans") objections to the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Locke on January 5, 2017 (the "R&R"), in which Magistrate Locke recommended that Defendants' motion to vacate the default judgment entered against them on March 7, 2016 be denied. For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Locke's R&R is adopted in its entirety and Defendants' motion to vacate the default judgment is denied.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Background

         This case arises out of the collapse of A-E Packaging, Inc., which conducted business under the names "Tee Pee Packaging" and "Tee Pee Packaging, Inc." (the "Corporate Defendant" or "Tee Pee"). Tee Pee was a manufacturer of plastic films and other plastic products. The Plaintiff, Matrix Polymers, Inc. ("Plaintiff or "Matrix"), is a distributor of plastic resin, which Tee Pee used to manufacture its line of plastic products. Tee Pee's failure to pay Plaintiff for resin sold and delivered between November 2014 and September 2016 led to the instant litigation.[1]

         II. Prior Proceedings

         Plaintiff commenced the within diversity action on October 21, 2015, alleging fifteen causes of action against both Tee Pee and the individual Defendants, Charles and Andrew Deehan. Despite each being served with a Summons and Complaint, none of the Defendants appeared in this action and, on December 16, 2015, certificates of default were issued against all of the Defendants.

         On January 13, 2016, Plaintiff moved for a default judgment against Defendants for a sum certain, as set forth in the Complaint. Defendants did not oppose the motion for default judgment and, on March 7, 2016, the Court granted the motion, awarding Plaintiff $890, 285.69 in damages, with all Defendants held jointly and severally liable.

         The Deehans thereafter moved to vacate the default judgment as entered solely against them.[2] That motion was referred to Magistrate Locke, who rendered his R&R on January 5, 2017, recommending that the Deehans' motion be denied in its entirety. The Deehans object to that recommendation and both sides have now fully briefed the issues.

         III. The Findings of the Magistrate Judge and the Deehans' Objections

         In his well-reasoned and thorough R&R, Judge Locke recommended that the Deehans' motion to vacate be denied, after considering and rejecting each of the three arguments raised by the Deehans in support of their motion. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.