Hall et al v. Chiriac et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
§
DARREN HALL, MICHAEL 	§
HENNESSY, and MARK
CARTWRIGHT,
§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-3273-K
§
THE TONE KNOWS, INC., 	§
TONE MULTI-MEDIA LLC, 	§
VLAD CHIRIAC, individually, and 	§
VALI CHIRIAC, individually, 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The United States Magistrate Judge submitted Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation (the “FCT”) in this case. 	Doc. No. 52. 	The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court deny Plaintiffs Darren Hall, Michael Hennessy, and Mark
Cartwright’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants The TONE Knows, Inc.
and TONE Multi-Media LLC and dismiss their claims without prejudice for lack of
personal jurisdiction. 	See id. at 13-15.
Plaintiffs Darren Hall, Michael Hennessy, and Mark Cartwright (“Plaintiffs”)
filed their Objection to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 55). Each Plaintiff executed a sworn declaration
Case 3:24-cv-03273-K Document 59 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

2
and these declarations were all attached to the Objection in support. 	This Court has
reviewed 	de 	novo 	those 	portions 	of 	the 	proposed 	findings, 	conclusions, 	and
recommendation to which objection was made. 	It is well-established that “[t]here
must be a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered.” Nishimatsu Constr.
Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975). 	“On appeal,
the defendant, although he may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, is
entitled to contest the sufficiency of the complaint and its allegations to support the
judgment.” 	Id. 	The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly stressed that “a judgment entered
without personal jurisdiction is void” and, therefore, “a district court has the duty to
assure that it has the power to enter a valid default judgment.” 	Sys. Pipe & Supply,
Inc. v. M/V VIKTOR KURNATOVSKIY, 242 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 2001); accord
Nagravision SA v. Gotech Int’l Tech. Ltd., 882 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 2018).
The Magistrate Judge correctly found that Plaintiffs did not allege sufficient
facts to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the TONE Defendants as to
any of Plaintiffs’ claims and, therefore, the request for default judgment should be
denied. 	Further, Plaintiffs’ attempt to cure these jurisdictional deficiencies in their
Complaint with the sworn declarations attached to their Objection is unavailing. 	See
Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assocs., Inc., 788 F.3d 490, 499-500 (5th Cir, 2015)
(emphasizing that evidence can be used to support well-plead allegations in the
complaint on a motion for default judgment); Edge v. TLW Energy Servs., L.L.C., 2023
Case 3:24-cv-03273-K Document 59 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

3
WL 3267847, at *5 (5th Cir. May 5, 2023). 	Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES
the Objection.
The Court has reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the Court concludes that the
Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct and ACCEPTS the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as
to denying the Motion for Default Judgment. 	Accordingly, Plaintiffs Darren Hall,
Michael Hennessy, and Mark Cartwright’s Motion for Default Judgment against
Defendants The TONE Knows, Inc. and TONE Multi-Media LLC is hereby DENIED.
The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’
claims 	against 	the 	TONE 	Defendants 	without 	prejudice 	for 	lack 	of 	personal
jurisdiction. 	Before the Court could rule on the FCR, Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (the “Motion to Amend”) (Doc. No. 58) “to
cure any perceived [jurisdictional] deficiencies in the December 03, 2025, Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.” 	Doc. No.
58 at 1. 	Considering Plaintiffs’ request to amend their jurisdictional allegations, the
Court REJECTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims
against the TONE Defendants without prejudice.
Upon careful consideration of the Motion to Amend, the Court finds that leave
should be given and, so, GRANTS the Motion to Amend. 	See F ED . R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2)
Case 3:24-cv-03273-K Document 59 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

4
(“[C]ourt should freely give leave when justice so requires.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1653.
To be clear, in allowing this amended pleading, the Court is not commenting on
whether the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint will support the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over the TONE Defendants.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, filed
as Doc. No. 58-1, as of the date of this Order.
Because they do not assert a new claim against the TONE Defendants, Plaintiffs
are not required to serve each of the TONE Defendants with the Third Amended
Complaint. 	See PGM of Tex., LLC v. Great Glory Cares, Inc., 2024 WL 2131485, at *2
(W.D. Tex. May 13, 2024) (citing F ED . R. CIV. P. 5(a)(2); In re Chinese Manufactured
Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 742 F.3d 576, 593-94 (5th Cir. 2014)). 	However, the
Third Amended Complaint does not “refer[] to and adopt[] or incorporate[] by
reference” the Second Amended Complaint; therefore, the Third Amended Complaint
supersedes and renders a nullity the Second Amended Complaint. 	King v .Dogan, 31
F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994)(per curiam). 	Accordingly, Plaintiffs must file a new
request for Clerk’s entry of default and, thereafter, a motion for default judgment.
PGM of Tex., 2024 WL 2131485, at *2 (citing King, 31 F.3d at 346); see Am. Advisors
Grp. v. Robinson, 2019 WL 83331433, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2019) (an amended
complaint supersedes the prior pleading and, therefore, renders the clerk’s entry of
default on the prior pleading a nullity that must be set aside and moots any pending
Case 3:24-cv-03273-K Document 59 Filed 01/07/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

5
motion for default judgment); U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. as Tr. for Truman 2016 SC6 Title
Tr. v. Harris, 2017 WL 10776031, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017) (“To that end, the
Clerk’s Entry of Default based on Defendant’s failure to answer or otherwise respond
to the original Complaint is likewise a nullity and must be set aside.”).
SO ORDERED.
Signed January 7th , 2026.
________________________________________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-03273-K Document 59 Filed 01/07/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>