Gor Aghabekyan v. Christopher Knight - Default Judgment Denied for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Summary
The US District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against defendant US Motors Corp. (USMC) on the ground that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over USMC. The Court found that USMC is incorporated in and has its principal place of business in Wyoming, and plaintiffs failed to allege any minimum contacts between USMC and Michigan sufficient to support specific personal jurisdiction. The ruling clarifies that courts must independently verify personal jurisdiction before entering default judgments, and that defaulting defendants may avoid default judgment by demonstrating lack of jurisdiction even through the court's own inquiry.
“The Court does not adopt the reasoning of the R&R. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment (ECF No. 18) is DENIED.”
About this source
GovPing monitors US District Court WDMI Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 3 changes logged to date.
What changed
The Court denied plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against US Motors Corp, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation but on different grounds. The Court determined it lacks personal jurisdiction over USMC because plaintiffs cannot establish general or specific personal jurisdiction—USMC is incorporated in Wyoming, not Michigan, and plaintiffs failed to allege any connection between USMC and Michigan such as contracts executed in Michigan or the converted truck being in Michigan.\n\nFor parties seeking default judgments against non-responding corporate defendants, this ruling underscores that courts will conduct sua sponte personal jurisdiction analysis before entering default judgments. Creditors and plaintiffs should ensure allegations in complaints establish a clear basis for personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations, including minimum contacts with the forum state connected to the cause of action, to avoid denial of default judgment motions.
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Trial Court Document
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
Feb. 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Gor Aghabekyan, et al. v. Christopher Knight, et al.
District Court, W.D. Michigan
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 1:25-cv-00497
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GOR AGHABEKYAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 1:25-cv-497
v.
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs Gor Aghabekyan and Armtruck Transport, LLC, bring this lawsuit against
Defendants Christopher Knight and US Motors Corp (USMC). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
committed conversion and breach of contract by retaining possession of a 2021 Kenworth T880
semi-truck after the expiration of their lease. Defendant USMC did not respond to the complaint
and the Clerk of Court entered default against it on June 18, 2025 (ECF No. 15). Plaintiffs moved
for default judgment against USMC on July 15, 2025 (ECF No. 18). Before the Court is the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (R&R) that the Court deny the motion for default
judgment (ECF No. 29). Plaintiffs have filed objections (ECF Nos. 34, 35). For the reasons
explained below, the Court will overrule the objections and deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion for several reasons that Plaintiffs
address in their objections. But it is unnecessary to consider the objections because the Court will
deny the motion on a different basis: it is not clear that the Court has personal jurisdiction over
USMC. A judgment entered without personal jurisdiction over a defendant is void, so the Court
should determine whether it has personal jurisdiction before entering a default judgment. Williams
v. Life Sav. & Loan, 802 F.2d 1200, 1203 (10th Cir. 1986) (“[W]hen entry of a default judgment
is sought against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, the district court has an
affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction both over the subject matter and the parties.”); Sinoying
Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp., 619 F.3d 207, 213 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[W]e agree with
our sister circuits that before a court grants a motion for default judgment, it may first assure itself
that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.”); In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999)
(same).
Personal jurisdiction may be general or specific. General personal jurisdiction over a
corporation exists in its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. See Daimler AG
v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014). Michigan courts do not have general personal jurisdiction
over USMC because the company is incorporated in and has its principal place of business in
Wyoming. (Am. Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 5.) Specific personal jurisdiction exists if a corporation
has “minimum contacts” with a state that are related to the cause of action. Daimler, 571 U.S. at
126–27. Plaintiffs cannot establish specific personal jurisdiction because they do not allege any
connection between USMC and Michigan. For example, they do not allege that the contracts at
issue in the case were executed or performed in Michigan or that the allegedly converted truck is
in, or has ever been in, Michigan. They do allege that “a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to the claims occurred in this District” (Am. Compl. ¶ 7), but this statement is far too
vague to establish personal jurisdiction over USMC in Michigan.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (ECF Nos. 34, 35) are
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the disposition proposed by the R&R (ECF No. 29) is
APPROVED for the reasons set out above. The Court does not adopt the reasoning of the R&R.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (ECF No. 18)
is DENIED.
Dated: February 27, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Named provisions
Related changes
Get daily alerts for US District Court WDMI Docket Feed
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from WDMI.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when US District Court WDMI Docket Feed publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.