PARK v. PRYNT CORPORATION
2:18-cv-14474
| D.N.J. | Sep 30, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Sungho Park, a business executive who formed MCNS Co., Ltd. to distribute Prynt portable printers in South Korea, alleges Prynt Corporation (and its founder Clement Perrot) promised him exclusive distributorship for South Korea (offer in late 2016; email confirmation Aug. 11, 2017).
- Park says he incurred business expenses (hiring staff, website, marketing) and that Prynt signed a June 2017 written supply agreement but failed to deliver ordered products.
- In March 2018 defendants allegedly told Park they had contracted with another distributor for South Korea, terminating his exclusivity. Park filed suit Oct. 1, 2018 asserting fraud in the inducement, breach of the exclusivity term and contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
- Defendants did not answer; Park moved for default judgment. The docket reflects service on defendants.
- The Court found subject-matter diversity jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over defendants satisfied and concluded Park’s complaint sufficiently pleaded the asserted claims.
- The Court denied Park’s motion for default judgment without prejudice because Park’s submitted damages ($329,400 for 549 hours at an hourly rate) were not shown to reasonably result from the pleaded causes of action; any renewed motion must explain damages by affidavit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity) | Complete diversity and >$75,000 in controversy | No response | Diversity jurisdiction satisfied |
| Personal jurisdiction and service | Defendants do business in NJ; docket shows service | No response | Service and personal jurisdiction satisfied |
| Sufficiency of pleaded claims (fraud, breach, covenant, unjust enrichment) | Alleged exclusivity promise, contract formation, reliance and resulting harm | No response | Complaint sufficiently pleads all asserted causes of action |
| Damages proof for default judgment | Requests $329,400 (549 hours × hourly rate) as fair compensation | No response | Damage amount not shown to flow from pleaded claims; default judgment denied without prejudice; renew with affidavit explaining damages |
Key Cases Cited
- DIRECTV, Inc. v. Pepe, 431 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2005) (on default, complaint allegations other than damages are treated as conceded)
- E.A. Sween Co., Inc. v. Deli Express of Tenafly, LLC, 19 F. Supp. 3d 560 (D.N.J. 2014) (default judgment may be entered only against properly served defendants)
- Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Nat’l Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 842 (D.N.J. 2008) (court must determine jurisdiction before entering default judgment)
- Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2015) (diversity jurisdiction standards)
- Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2007) (standards for personal jurisdiction)
- RNC Systems, Inc. v. Modern Technology Group, Inc., 861 F. Supp. 2d 436 (D.N.J. 2012) (elements of fraudulent inducement under New Jersey law)
- Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n Local Union No. 27 v. E.P. Donnelly, Inc., 737 F.3d 879 (3d Cir. 2013) (elements for breach of contract under New Jersey law)
- Fields v. Thompson Printing Co., 363 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2004) (implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing)
- VRG Corp. v. GKN Realty Corp., 135 N.J. 539 (1994) (elements of unjust enrichment under New Jersey law)