A default judgment was issued in open court on December 8, 2020, in the New York County Court for the Southern District of New York, following the entry of default judgment against New Jersey Car And Limo, LLC (“New Jersey Car And Limo”), a Delaware corporation, by Plaintiff LimousineStars, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) on October 12, 2020. This article seeks to provide information regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuance of this default judgment against New Jersey Car And Limousine Company, LLC. As the matter relates to the merits of this case, we have reviewed the pleadings in this case and are persuaded that the judge erred in the granting of the default judgment against this company, as we believe that the underlying facts support the granting of this judgment.
On the date of the entry of this default judgment against New Jersey Car And Limousine Company, LLC, New Jersey Limousine Company filed its Response to the Complaint, admitting responsibility for the default, but denying liability to any of its employees or agents. The defendant then filed an answer, in this case, denying liability to its employees or agents, but admitting responsibility for the breach of contract claim. The defendants later amended their Answer to admit liability to each of its agents and employees.
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment based on the parties’ stipulated agreements, which held that the first party defendant breached its agreement with the plaintiff and that the second party defendant breached its agreement with the first party defendant. The defendant argued that the contract was created by negligence on the part of the first party defendant, but the plaintiffs argued that it was caused by the defendant’s breach of its agreement with the plaintiff. In my view, the court abused its discretion in failing to follow the standard rules of the law that would lead to a different result.
New jersey car and limo Company relied on its reliance on the First Amendment to argue that the New Jersey law permitting it to rely on the First Amendment should not be applied to apply to its alleged breach of the contract claim. In other words, it argued that its alleged breach of contract claim against the plaintiff was valid because it was protected under the First Amendment, which allowed it to rely on the First Amendment as a shield for its claims of negligence. on behalf of itself and its customers.
The plaintiffs, however, strongly disagreed with the plaintiffs’ reliance argument, pointing out that New Jersey has not expressly recognized the use of the First Amendment as a shield to rely on to protect its alleged breach of contract claim against its customers. Instead, New Jersey has relied on a variety of rationales, such as the fact that it is a state-regulated business, and that the New Jersey courts historically have treated New Jersey Car And Limos as private entities. Accordingly, I concur with the New York Supreme Court’s rejection of the defendants’ reliance argument that New Jersey cannot rely on the First Amendment to defend its alleged breach of contract claim against a New York resident who brought this action on behalf of a class of New Jersey residents.