PAUL DESCHENES REBECCA BUZALSKY KEITH BUZALSKY AMY SULLIVAN SUSAN ANDERS ALEXA CAROLINE LEWIS v. DTS TOWING LLC COBRA VAN LINES LLC SAV TRANS LLC VISTAR TRANSPORTATION LLC (2026)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Cobra Van Lines, LLC (“Cobra”). Doc. 97. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from claims of destruction and loss of property. Doc. 43. According to the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs hired Cobra, a New Jersey moving company, to transport their personal belongings interstate, but Cobra subcontracted the job to Sav Trans, LLC. Id. at 3. On January 24, 2023, the transport truck crashed on Interstate 55 in Tennessee, ejecting the Plaintiffs' property across the highway. Id. at 4. Defendant DTS Towing, LLC allegedly collected and stored the items unprotected for months while refusing to release them. Id. Despite formal demands and Carmack Amendment claims submitted by the Plaintiffs, Cobra failed to retrieve or return the property, leading Plaintiffs to add Cobra as a defendant in the present lawsuit. Id. at 5. Plaintiffs now assert Carmack Amendment claims against Cobra and Sav Trans. Id. Cobra has not responded or otherwise appeared, resulting in the present Motion for Default Judgment. Docs. 34, 97.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. This requires a two-step process. First, a plaintiff must request from the Clerk of Court an entry of default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). If the plaintiff's claim is not for “a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation,” the plaintiff must apply to the Court for a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Upon entry of default judgment, the factual allegations of the complaint are accepted as true. United States v. Conces, 507 F.3d 1028, 1038 (6th Cir. 2007).

However, “[w]hen a default is entered against one defendant in a multi-defendant case, the preferred practice is for the court to withhold granting a default judgment until the trial of the action on the merits against the remaining defendants. If plaintiff loses on the merits, the complaint should then be dismissed against both defaulting and non-defaulting defendants.” Diversified Power Int'l, LLC v. Arcarius, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-17, 2020 WL 12861717, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 25, 2020) (citing Kimberly v. Coastline Coal Corp., 857 F.2d 1474 (6th Cir. 1988). This narrow rule applies only when the liability of the defendants is joint, the purpose of the rule being “to avoid inconsistent judgments in a case where liability of the defendants is alleged to be joint or joint and several.” Id.

Here, Plaintiffs are alleging joint liability against Sav Trans and Cobra pursuant to the Carmack Amendment as Count I in their Amended Complaint.Doc. 43 at 5. Before a decision on the merits has been made, it is improper to enter a final default judgment against Cobra. The appropriate way to proceed when a complaint asserts a “joint charge against several defendants, and one of them makes default, is simply to enter a default and a formal decree pro confesso against him, and proceed with the cause upon the answers of the other defendants.” Kimberly, 857 F.2d 1474.

At this stage, Cobra “has merely lost [its] standing in court,” meaning it may adduce no evidence, cannot be heard at the final hearing, and is not entitled to service of notices in the cause, nor to appear in it in any way. Id. Then, “if the suit should be decided against the [Plaintiffs] on the merits, the bill will be dismissed as to all the defendants alike—the defaulter as well as the others.” Id. If the case is decided in the Plaintiffs' favor, they “will then be entitled to a final decree against all” held jointly liable. Id. “But a final decree on the merits against the defaulting defendant alone, pending the continuance of the cause, would be incongruous and illegal.”

Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff MAY refile upon conclusion of trial, in connection with an agreed dismissal of all other Defendants, or with an explanation concerning why the general rule applicable in cases of alleged joint or joint and several liability does not apply.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 9th day of September, 2026.

BRIAN C. LEA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE