Federal Court Vacates Default Judgment Where Record Confirms Defendant Was Not Served

In the case of McLaughlin v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-839 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2024 Munley, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Vacate a Default Judgment in a case involving a playpen that was sold on Amazon.com that allegedly caused the death of the Plaintiff’s child.

According to the Opinion, the defense argued that the Defendant was not properly served within ninety (90) days of the Complaint being filed. Rather, Amazon claimed that the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a request for a waiver of service to which Amazon did not reply. The Plaintiff relied upon an argument of service based upon a return receipt indicating that the Plaintiff had been sent to Amazon’s legal department and that it had been received by an agent identified only by initials. The Plaintiff’s claims that these receipts were proof of service of the Complaint on the Defendant.

Judge Munley noted that the distinction between sending a waiver of service to the Defendants and serving the Complaint on the Defendants was critical to the Plaintiff’s request for the entry of a default judgment.

Judge Julia K. Munley
M.D. Pa.

After reviewing the Plaintiff’s exhibits again, the Court confirmed that Amazon was correct in that it had not been served with the Summons or the Complaint.

The Court agreed with the Defendants that the default judgment should not have been entered in the first place given that service had not been completed.  The court found that the default judgment was, therefore, void.

With regards to the Defendant’s related Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, the Court granted the Plaintiffs a thirty (30) day extension to serve the Defendant with the Summons and the Complaint. The Court found that the Defendants would most likely not be prejudiced by that extension of time.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE


Source: Article – “Judge Voids Default Judgment Against Amazon Due to Procedural Error, Grants Extra Time for Proper Service” by Riley Brennan of the Legal Intelligencer (Aug. 29 2024).

Lessons In Federal Court Complaint Drafting

In the case of Fike v. Global Pharma Healthcare Private, Ltd., No. 5:23-CV-2981 (E.D. Pa. July 18, 2024 Leeson, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss filed by Amazon in a products liability case.

In his decision, Judge Leeson ruled that the Complaint was sufficiently pled so as to avoid dismissal under an argument of a shotgun pleading. However, the court noted that the allegations against “Defendants” were improperly grouped together.

The court also struck the Plaintiff’s claims alleging a post-sale duty to recall in this products liability case since no such claim is recognized under Pennsylvania law.

The court additionally ruled that shippers or distributors of products do not owe a duty of inspection or investigation into the products that they ship on to customers.

In this case, the court noted that the risk of a bacterial contamination from the product at issue was not foreseeable as to impose a duty upon the shipper. Imposing such an inspection duty on a shipper could hamper the shipper’s ability to distribute and ship products, which is an extremely socially useful service provided to the public at large.

The court additionally struck the punitive damages claim alleged by finding that punitive damages allegations cannot be based on allegations presented “on information and belief.”

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith law firm in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Christian Wiediger on www.unsplash.com.