PROKOPEV

v.

LUNEGOV

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Default Judgment Against Defendants Russian-American Development Company LLC (“Russian- American Development”) and Alfa Pro Inc. (“Alfa Pro”) (the “Motion”) (Doc. 53), filed June 29, 2023. Defendants Evgeny Igorevich Lunegov and Tatiana Lunegova filed a response in opposition. (Doc. 54.) Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff filed a multi-count Complaint against numerous defendants on March 23, 2023, for various claims arising under Florida law and for declaratory relief. (Doc. 1.) Defendant Victor Mikhaylov, proceeding pro se, filed a counterclaim against Plaintiff. (Doc. 42.) Plaintiff ultimately obtained clerk’s defaults against Defendants Russian-American Development and Alfa Pro (Doc. 39.) This Motion followed.

Plaintiff argues he is entitled to a default judgment against Russian-American Development and Alfa Pro at this time, despite the fact that the case is ongoing as to the remaining non-defaulted Defendants. (Doc. 53.) Lunegov and Lunegova oppose Plaintiff’s Motion, responding that they have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that has not yet been resolved, and a default judgment would not be appropriate at this time because of allegations of joint liability in the Complaint. (Doc. 54.) The undersigned finds Lunegov and Lunegova’s arguments persuasive. Prior to entering a default judgment against a defendant, a court must assure itself that it has jurisdiction over the action and the parties. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins.

Co. v. Creation’s Own Corp., S.C., No. 6:11-CV-1054-ORL-28, 2011 WL 6752561, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 6752557 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2011). Defendants Lunegov and Lunegova have moved to dismiss the case, asserting that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction—specifically, diversity jurisdiction—over this matter (Doc. 16). The motion to dismiss has not yet been resolved. Additionally, “in cases involving more than one defendant, a judgment . . . should not be entered against a defaulting party alleged to be jointly liable, until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all defendants.” Nationwide, 2011 WL 6752561, at *5. Here, the case is still being actively litigated against the remaining nondefaulted Defendants, and joint liability is clearly an issue, as allegations against Russian-American Development and Alfa Pro are intertwined with the actions of

Lunegov. (See Doc. 1.) Plaintiff appears to recognize as much in his Motion, asserting that the Court should pierce the corporate veil of Russian-American Development Company LLC and Alfa Pro Inc. to find Lunegov liable. (Doc. 53 at 9–10, 15–16.) The risk of an inconsistent judgment if final default judgment were to be entered at this stage of the proceedings is high. Moreover, there has been no indication or argument that entry of a final default judgment against Russian-American Development or Alfa Pro is necessary at this point. Thus, the Court will deny the Motion without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (noting that the Court may enter final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all claims or parties “only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.”) Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Default Judgment Against Defendants Russian- American Development Company LLC and Alfa Pro Inc. (Doc. 53) is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. Plaintiff may re-file a motion for default judgment against Defendants Russian-American Development Company LLC and Alfa Pro Inc. after the action has been adjudicated as to all of the remaining, non-defaulted Defendants. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on September 14, 2023.

A KIDD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE