The Issue
Whether the SV Hotel breached the Franchise Agreement and fail to cover the required payment and damages with Howard Johnson International?
The Rules
According to the Chanel, Inc. v. Gordashevsky, 558 F. Supp. 2d 532, 535-36 (D.N.J. 2008); Wilmington Savings Fund Soc., FSB v. Left Field Props., LLC, No. 10-4061, 2011 WL 2470672, at *1 (D.N.J. June 20, 2011) and Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990), for default judgment, the District Court must consider that both SVH and HJI has jurisdiction on their franchise agreement and whether the SVH have been done correctly with the situation. Other than that, the court analyze that there is a proper evidence from the plaintiff that the defendants cause the controversy, and the complaint can prove the damages with the agreement between the SVH and …show more content…
Nonetheless, the HJI abolished the Franchise Agreement with SVH on April 28 because SVH did not cure the problems and breach the agreement. Apart from that, the defendants have not done anything to against to the complaints and the instant motion, and the time has expired for answering complaint.
According to the rule of the district court, the court found that both parties have a jurisdiction matter, and the money with the controversy exceeds $75,000. Additionally, the courts found the fact that SVH have been served correctly from the HJI’s proof that they could not serve SVH, and the complaint and summons are the one made service with New Jersey Court Rules.
The conclusion from the court is that the claim from the HJI that SVH broke the Franchise Agreement with payment and damages has pled. The judgment of the monetary damages will be entered to defendants SVH for recurring fee ($104,314.02), liquidated damages (177,105.77), and attorneys’ fees and costs
Whether the SV Hotel breached the Franchise Agreement and fail to cover the required payment and damages with Howard Johnson International?
The Rules
According to the Chanel, Inc. v. Gordashevsky, 558 F. Supp. 2d 532, 535-36 (D.N.J. 2008); Wilmington Savings Fund Soc., FSB v. Left Field Props., LLC, No. 10-4061, 2011 WL 2470672, at *1 (D.N.J. June 20, 2011) and Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990), for default judgment, the District Court must consider that both SVH and HJI has jurisdiction on their franchise agreement and whether the SVH have been done correctly with the situation. Other than that, the court analyze that there is a proper evidence from the plaintiff that the defendants cause the controversy, and the complaint can prove the damages with the agreement between the SVH and …show more content…
Nonetheless, the HJI abolished the Franchise Agreement with SVH on April 28 because SVH did not cure the problems and breach the agreement. Apart from that, the defendants have not done anything to against to the complaints and the instant motion, and the time has expired for answering complaint.
According to the rule of the district court, the court found that both parties have a jurisdiction matter, and the money with the controversy exceeds $75,000. Additionally, the courts found the fact that SVH have been served correctly from the HJI’s proof that they could not serve SVH, and the complaint and summons are the one made service with New Jersey Court Rules.
The conclusion from the court is that the claim from the HJI that SVH broke the Franchise Agreement with payment and damages has pled. The judgment of the monetary damages will be entered to defendants SVH for recurring fee ($104,314.02), liquidated damages (177,105.77), and attorneys’ fees and costs