The opinion of the court was delivered by: O'neill, J.
On May 24, 2012, plaintiff Mildred V. Bibbs filed motions for default judgment against defendants Meritfinance.com, Diamond Industries, Inc. and JRS Settlement Services, Inc. For the reasons that follow, I will grant plaintiff's motions.
Plaintiff sought to hire someone to complete repairs to her home at 315 W. Hansberry Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She engaged the services of Diamond Industries after seeing an advertisement for its operation in a newspaper. Unfortunately, plaintiff's interactions with Diamond Industries, MeritFinance, JRS Settlement, and the other defendants in this action did not result in the desired repairs to her home. Instead, plaintiff, who was 73 years old at the time that this action was filed and who had lived in her home for more than 40 years, now finds herself effectively homeless. The repairs that plaintiff hired Diamond Industries to complete were so substandard that they forced plaintiff to abandon her home. She claims that she has not been in her home since October 2008 and now, without a room to call her own, spends her nights on a pull-out couch at her daughter's house, far from the neighborhood where friends would come to visit her on her front porch and where she worked and later volunteered at the school that was across the street from her home.
Plaintiff owned her home free and clear of any mortgage prior to her interactions with defendants. She believed that defendants would assist her in obtaining an unsecured loan to finance the costs of her desired home repairs. Instead, after her dealings with defendants, she was left with a first lien mortgage on her home. That mortgage is now subject to foreclosure proceedings. BAC Home Loans v. Bibbs, No. 090501447 (Ct. Comm. Pls. Phila. Cty.).
Seeking to restore what she has lost, plaintiff's amended complaint, Dkt. No. 24, asserts claims against Diamond Industries, MeritFinance and JRS Settlement for fraud (Count IV), civil conspiracy (Count VI), concerted tortious conduct (Count VII) and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (Count V), 73 P.S. §201-9.2(a). Plaintiff also asserts a claim against Diamond Industries for Breach of Contract (Count III). She effectuated service of a summons and the amended complaint on MeritFinance on May 25, 2010, Dkt. No. 37, and on JRS Settlement on June 1, 2010, Dkt. No. 36. To date, neither MeritFinance nor JRS Settlement has answered the complaint.
On May 17, 2010, Diamond Industries, through its counsel Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose & Podolsky, filed an answer to plaintiff's amended complaint. On April 25, 2011, I referred this matter for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge L. Felipe Restrepo. On May 10, 2011, Sherman Silverstein filed a motion for leave of court to withdraw its appearance as counsel for Diamond Industries "because it ha[d] been discharged by its client in this matter." Dkt. No. 48. The motion to withdraw claimed that "Diamond Industries[ ] has ceased doing business and does not wish Sherman Silverstein to defend this action." Id. On May 23, 2011, Judge Restrepo ordered the settlement conference to be held on July 19, 2011. Neither Sherman Silverstein nor any representative of Diamond Industries attended the July 19 settlement conference and no representative of Diamond Industries communicated with the Court or counsel for plaintiff regarding its absence.
On July 20, 2011, I ordered a scheduling conference for July 27, 2011. No attorney from Sherman Silverstein attended the scheduling conference and I granted its motion to withdraw. Dkt. No. 54. No other representative of Diamond Industries attended the scheduling conference or communicated with the Court or counsel for plaintiff regarding its absence. Counsel for plaintiff represents that since the scheduling conference, plaintiff has served Diamond Industries with multiple discovery requests at all known addresses connected to Diamond Industries and Diamond Industries has not responded to any of the discovery requests.
A hearing was held on plaintiff's motions for default judgment on July 24, 2012. JRS Settlement, MeritFinance and Diamond Industries were notified of the hearing but did not appear. Plaintiff testified as to her damages at the hearing.
Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a default may be entered when "a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). In deciding whether to enter default judgment, the Court should consider: "(1) prejudice to the plaintiff if default is denied; (2) whether the defendant appears to have a litigable defense; and (3) whether defendant's delay is due to culpable conduct." Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2000).
Because a party is "'not entitled to a default judgment as of right,'" the court must use "'sound judicial discretion'" in weighing whether or not to enter a default judgment. Prudential-LMI Commercial Ins. Co. v. Windmere Corp., No. 94-0197, 1995 WL 422794, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 14, 1995), quoting 10 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2685 (1983). "Generally, the entry of a default judgment is disfavored because it has the effect of preventing a case ...