United States District Court, D. Delaware
ROLAND C. ANDERSON, Plaintiff,
LOCAL 435 UNION, Defendant.
C. Anderson, Wilmington, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
STARK, U.S. District Judge
Roland C. Anderson ("Plaintiff') filed this action
against Defendants United Auto Workers Local 435 ("Local
435") and General Motors LLC ("GM") (together,
"Defendants") on September 11, 2012. (D.l. 1) The
claims against GM were dismissed on September 30, 2014.
(See D.I. 27) Pending before the Court are
Plaintiffs motions to execute judgment, construed as motions
for default judgment, and a motion to correct the case
caption. (D.L 50, 52, 53)
435 was served with process on October 4, 2012. (D.I. 7) A
Clerk's entry of default was docketed on April 11, 2016,
after Local 435 had not answered or otherwise appeared. (D.I.
44) The claims raised against Local 435 are virtually
identical to those raised against GM. Plaintiff now seeks
default judgment on the claims raised against Local 435.
(See D.I. 50, 53)
has filed two other lawsuits against Local 435 in this court.
The first, Anderson v. GM Local435, Civ. No.
98-045-JJF, was filed as a civil rights action and was
dismissed as frivolous on January 22, 1998. The second,
Anderson v. General Motors Corp., Civ. No.
03-275-JJF, was filed on March 12, 2003, and raised Title VII
discrirnination claims against GM and alleged that Local 435
failed to inform Plaintiff of GM's alleged discriminatory
conduct, and also that it violated § 301 (a) of the
Labor Management Relations Act, the Americans with Disability
Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 29, 2004, all claims
were dismissed as time-barred. See Anderson v. General
Motors Corp., 2004 WL 725208 (D. Del. Mar. 29, 2004).
district court has the discretion to enter default judgment,
although entry of default judgments is disfavored as
decisions on the merits are preferred." Animal Set.
Prods., Inc. v. China NafI Metals <& Minerals
Imp. & Exp. Corp., 596 F.Supp.2d 842, 847 (D.N.J.
2008). Before entering default judgment, the Court must: (1)
determine it has jurisdiction both over the subject matter
and the parties; (2) determine whether defendants have been
properly served; (3) analyze the Complaint to determine
whether it sufficiendy pleads a cause of action; and (4)
determine whether the plaintiff has proved damages. See
Chanel, Inc. v. Gordashevsky, 558 F.Supp.2d 532, 535-36
(D.N.J. 2008); Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc, FSB p. Left
Field Props., LLC, 2011 WL 2470672, at *1 (D.N.J. June
20, 2011). Although the facts pled in the Complaint are
accepted as true for the purpose of determining liability,
the plaintiff must prove damages. See Comdyne I, Inc. v.
Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990).
Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction over
the issues raised by Plaintiff and personal jurisdiction over
Local 435, which is located in Wilmington, Delaware. Local
435 was served pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e) in Delaware
through an agent authorized to accept service on its behalf.
(See D.I. 6) Plaintiff alleges violations of
employment discrimination laws, labor laws, tort law, and an
employee insurance policy, seeking as relief back pay,
restoration of benefits, and damages for pain and suffering.
noted above, the claims raised against Local 435 are
virtually identical to those raised against GM - and those
claims were dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). As
with his claims against GM, Plaintiff has failed to state
claims upon which relief may be granted against Local 435, by
reason of the doctrine of claim preclusion. In addition, the
claims are barred by Delaware's Workers Compensation Act
and are also contradicted by exhibits attached to the
Complaint. (See D.I. 27) (Sept. 30, 2014 Order
dismissing all claims against GM as barred by doctrine of
claim preclusion, Delaware's Workers Compensation Act,
and contradicted by exhibits attached to Complaint) Because
the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, entry of default judgment is not appropriate.
Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiffs motions for entry
of default judgment. (D.I. 50, 53)
Court will also deny Plaintiffs motion to correct the case
caption found in the April 29, 2016 order. (D.I. 52) The
caption contains the name of Local 435, but not GM's
name. Plaintiff asks the Court to include GM in the caption.
There is no need to do so. At the time the order was entered,
GM had been dismissed as a defendant.