ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Mercer Park, L.P. (the "Motion"). ECF No. [15]. Defendant Mercer Park, L.P. ("Defendant Mercer Park") did not file a response to the Motion, and the time to do so has passed. Defendant Ayr Wellness, Inc. ("Defendant Ayr Wellness") filed a Response in Opposition, ECF No. [17], and Plaintiff filed a Reply, ECF No. [22]. Upon due consideration of Plaintiff's Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. [15] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

On March 12, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendant Mercer Park, ECF No. [7] and on March 17, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendant Ayr Wellness, ECF No. [6]. Defendant Ayr Wellness appeared and filed an answer on April 28, 2025, ECF No. [20], and an amended answer on May 19, 2025, ECF No. [23], disputing the claims alleged in the Complaint. ECF No. [20]. Defendant Mercer Park did not file a response to the Complaint or seek an extension of time to do so. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court entered a default against Defendant Mercer Park for failure to appear, plead, or otherwise defend against this action. ECF No. [11]. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Final Judgment on April 16, 2025, ECF No. [12], which the Court denied with leave to amend. ECF No. [14]. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on April 17, 2025. ECF No. [15]. In the Response, Defendant Ayr Wellness argues that it is opposed to an entry of default judgment against Defendant Mercer Park. ECF No. [17] at 2. Defendant Ayr Wellness avers that because Plaintiff alleges Defendants are "jointly and severally liable[,]" and that the two causes of action in the Complaint are against both Defendants and are based on the same factual allegations, if one Defendant is successful in defending the action, granting default final judgment against the other Defendant may lead to an incongruous and unfair decision. Id.

Generally, if defendants are similarly situated, a judgment should not be entered against a defaulting defendant to avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments. Millennium Funding, Inc. v. 1701 MANAGEMENT LLC, No. 21-CV-20862, 2021 WL 5389897, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2021) (citation omitted); see also Gulf Coast Fans, Inc. v. Midwest Elecs. Imp., Inc., 740 F.2d 1499, 1512 (11th Cir. 1984) ("Even when defendants are similarly situated, but not jointly liable, judgment should not be entered against a defaulting defendant if the other defendant prevails on the merits.").

Each claim in the Complaint brought against Defendant Mercer Park is also brought against Defendant Ayr Wellness and is based upon the same set of facts. ECF No. [1]. Indeed, there is no delineation in Plaintiff's Complaint or Motion separating the actions of one Defendant from the other. Defendant Ayr Wellness has appeared in this action, denies the allegations described in the Complaint, and disputes any liability. See generally, ECF No. [23]. Defendant Ayr Wellness may still prevail in its denial of the claims against it. As a result, entry of a default judgment as to one defendant risks the possibility of inconsistent judgments regarding the same issues. Absent any indication that entry of final judgment solely against Defendant Mercer Park is necessary or appropriate at this point rather than once the action is resolved, the Court declines to enter default judgment.

Accordingly, to avoid inconsistent determinations of liability, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. [15], is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff may move for the entry of default final judgment against Defendant Mercer Park no later than 14 days after the claim is resolved with respect to the other Defendant against whom that count is also alleged.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 16th day of June, 2025.

JACQUELINE BECERRA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE